CT Man busted in NJ for carrying gun

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Just learned of this;

 

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110110/NEWS/101100340/Appellate-Court-rejects-defense-on-handgun-charge-in-Hunterdon

 

Seems he was driving from CT to PA, stopped to pump his own gas, and got busted for carrying a loaded gun on him. He claimed he had various CCW permits, FL being one of them, and was under the assumption that they were valid in NJ. Seems part of his defense was that he didn't know NJ laws, and the Court told him *Too bad* since he should have taken the time to look it all up.

 

I wonder what it was that triggered the LEO interest in him carrying a weapon.

 

This should put any NJ gun owners, who have out of state CCW's, on notice to be sure to look into various State laws before carrying.

[RecessedFilter 222]

It could have been as simple as the Officer asking him if he had any weapons in the car. Most CCW holders will politely state, "Yes, I am carrying a handgun on me which I have all my CCW papers for." "Ok, can you please step out of the vehicle, sir?" and then it goes from there...

 

Edit:

As I read the article, I found it odd that the officer would proceed in investigating someone pumping their own gas. What? That is unheard of. I've pumped my gas numerous times in my car, and every time on my motorcycle, even in plain-view of an LEO sometimes and they don't even notice, nonetheless care. I'm guessing the Officer had to have been in the vicinity of the gas station (either at the mini-mart if it had one or in the parking lot) and saw the man get out and try pumping his own gas.

 

Oh, and as I read the article, it stated that the Officer asked the CT man if he had any weapons in the car, to which the man responded that he had a handgun on him.

 

Sounds like something similiar to this:

Assault Weapons and Guns bust in Readington Twp

 

Basically, a man was traveling from Texas to Maine, fell asleep in his car in Readington Twp, NJ, and an on-duty Officer checked on the parked car and arrested him for having 20+ guns on him including "AW's" after questioning him.

Edited January 11, 2011 by RecessedFilter

[Babaganoosh 192]

From the article...

 

Before Antrum went to trial, Superior Court Judge Stephen Rubin ruled that the evidence of the out-of-state permits could not be entered as evidence into the trial because it was not a valid defense.

 

----

 

Yeah I know that it's fault for not reading up on it enough but I just don't like when I see judges not allowing information or evidence in the trial. It's actually quite scary.

[joecs1 11]

Unfortunately, wether its admitted to evidence or not........He still could not win! He broke the law! I hate this state!

[Babaganoosh 192]

 

Edit:

As I read the article, I found it odd that the officer would proceed in investigating someone pumping their own gas. What? That is unheard of.

 

 

He was trying to pump gas at a gas station that was closed. Thats kinda suspicious.

[djg0770 481]

Unfortunately, wether its admitted to evidence or not........He still could not win! He broke the law! I hate this state!

 

But it may have made the jury rule differently and THAT is why it was not admitted as evidence.

 

I guess that "Security Guard" does not fall under LEOSA.

[vladtepes 1,060]

but I just don't like when I see judges not allowing information or evidence in the trial. It's actually quite scary.

 

normally I agree but in this case I agree with the judge.. because him having a CCW license in EVERY state would not be relevant here because it is still illegal carry.. why allow information that is not relevant sway the jury to a verdict that is unjust.. just my 2 cents..

[joecs1 11]

But it may have made the jury rule differently and THAT is why it was not admitted as evidence.

 

I guess that "Security Guard" does not fall under LEOSA.

 

I understand what you are thinking, but a jury HAS TO RULE based on what the law is. Yes.....maybe one person might swing the other way, but not likely. This guy made a big mistake. The laws in this state are draconian. But for now....they are what they are.

[RecessedFilter 222]

He was trying to pump gas at a gas station that was closed. Thats kinda suspicious.

 

Skimmed past that line. Woops

[Bob B 103]

normally I agree but in this case I agree with the judge.. because him having a CCW license in EVERY state would not be relevant here because it is still illegal carry.. why allow information that is not relevant sway the jury to a verdict that is unjust.. just my 2 cents..

 

Because the jury may decide that it is a bad law.

 

Vlad, I gotta disagree with you on this one. The point is that possession of a firearm for the purpose of self-defense by a law-abiding citizen in a non-sensitive area, with no criminal intent, should never be a crime.

 

This is why we have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers, not by a judge. If the jury believes that the person committed the crime, but doesn't like the law or the punishment, they can vote not-guilty and send a message to the legislature that they need to change the law. That's how the system is supposed to work, but we have been tricked into thinking that we are supposed to follow all of the judge's instructions even if we don't agree with them. Not true - we can acquit based on good conscience.

 

Jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. This is a prime example of when jury nullification should have been used. If the jury knew about the permits, that may have made the difference. The jury may have gone through a thought process like this: "Why is this a third class crime (felony)? Why isn't it an administrative charge, like a $100 fine for not having a NJ permit? He has permits from other states so obviously he has been vetted and is not a danger to anyone. What kind of dumb-a** prosecutor would even pursue a case like this when there are real criminals out there? This guy is just an easy target. He might go to prison for this. Hmmm, something stinks. I'm not going to convict this guy. The law is stupid. NOT GUILTY"

 

After enough NOT GUILTY's the prosecutors stop trying similar cases and the legislature is prompted to change the law.

 

That's why it was important for the jury to know about the other permits.

 

 

I understand what you are thinking, but a jury HAS TO RULE based on what the law is. Yes.....maybe one person might swing the other way, but not likely. This guy made a big mistake. The laws in this state are draconian. But for now....they are what they are.

 

Joe, that is what judges tell us, but it is not true. A juror has the obligation to consider the law and may acquit based on good conscience. See above.

 

BTW, I wasn't aware of this either until about six months ago when I had jury duty. My experience prompted me to do some research. I posted about it here:

http://njgunforums.c...2Bnullification

[vladtepes 1,060]

Because the jury may decide that it is a bad law.

 

Vlad, I gotta disagree with you on this one. The point is that possession of a firearm for the purpose of self-defense by a law-abiding citizen in a non-sensitive area, with no criminal intent, should never be a crime.

 

This is why we have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers, not by a judge. If the jury believes that the person committed the crime, but doesn't like the law or the punishment, they can vote not-guilty and send a message to the legislature that they need to change the law. That's how the system is supposed to work, but we have been tricked into thinking that we are supposed to follow all of the judge's instructions even if we don't agree with them. Not true - we can acquit based on good conscience.

 

Jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. This is a prime example of when jury nullification should have been used. If the jury knew about the permits, that may have made the difference. The jury may have gone through a thought process like this: "Why is this a third class crime (felony)? Why isn't it an administrative charge, like a $100 fine for not having a NJ permit? He has permits from other states so obviously he has been vetted and is not a danger to anyone. What kind of dumb-a** prosecutor would even pursue a case like this when there are real criminals out there? This guy is just an easy target. He might go to prison for this. Hmmm, something stinks. I'm not going to convict this guy. The law is stupid. NOT GUILTY"

 

After enough NOT GUILTY's the prosecutors stop trying similar cases and the legislature is prompted to change the law.

 

That's why it was important for the jury to know about the other permits.

 

 

 

 

Joe, like many, you have fallen for the lie. See above.

 

BTW, I wasn't aware of this either until about six months ago when I had jury duty. My experience prompted me to do some research. I posted about it here:

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17199-troubling-jury-duty-experience-you-decide/page__hl__%2Bsmity+%2Bnullification

 

 

my apologies then.. my understanding of the law is totally wrong.. NOT being a smart a**.. but my understanding is that the jury is to give a verdict based on the law that was broken that is in effect... I did not know the jury had the power to change laws at will? what if a jury of ones peers decided selling crack cocaine is not really that big of a deal? could they vote not guilty? and totally disregard evidence and law?

 

if a juror rules not guilty when someone is clearly guilty they are abusing the power that in invested in them as a juror IMO.. again not to beat a dead horse but isn't the idea to render verdict based on evidence of breaking the law? and not supposed to allow personal opinion or prejudice to swing their vote one way or another?

 

to take your point the other way... to use a "gun possession" charge as an example.. would it not be equally wrong for someone who thinks guns are bad to side with the state against some individual because they feel it is for the greater good?

 

just saying..

[tony357 386]

it does not suprise me he was trying to fuel up at a closed station, heve you been to out of state pump your own fuel stations they looked closed when their open, our closed stations have more lights on..

[Bob B 103]

my apologies then.. my understanding of the law is totally wrong.. NOT being a smart a**.. but my understanding is that the jury is to give a verdict based on the law that was broken that is in effect... I did not know the jury had the power to change laws at will? what if a jury of ones peers decided selling crack cocaine is not really that big of a deal? could they vote not guilty? and totally disregard evidence and law?

 

if a juror rules not guilty when someone is clearly guilty they are abusing the power that in invested in them as a juror IMO.. again not to beat a dead horse but isn't the idea to render verdict based on evidence of breaking the law? and not supposed to allow personal opinion or prejudice to swing their vote one way or another?

 

to take your point the other way... to use a "gun possession" charge as an example.. would it not be equally wrong for someone who thinks guns are bad to side with the state against some individual because they feel it is for the greater good?

 

just saying..

 

No problem at all. It's a good debate and those who read your points and mine may decide for themselves.

 

I did not know the jury had the power to change laws at will?

A juror can't change the law, but he can vote to acquit regardless of what the law says, based on his own good conscience.

 

what if a jury of ones peers decided selling crack cocaine is not really that big of a deal?

 

That is exactly what happened with prohibition. Juries refused to convict and eventually, prohibition was repealed. Yes, it can lead to a bad verdict, but that is the risk that goes along with putting jurors in charge of a man's fate. A much more dangerous system of justice is one in which the juror is denied the use of his sense of right and wrong, and must make a decision based solely on the letter of the law (and only that law which the judge allows him to consider) and the instructions provided by the judge on how to interpret and apply the law, regardless of whether or not he agrees with them. Why have a jury trial at all if the judge can manipulate what is presented to the jury, knowing that the jury has no choice. Plus, if there is only one juror who refuses to convict and the rest refuse to change their vote, then it is a mistrial and the case may be tried again. If there is another mistrial, the prosecutor may get the message and give up.

 

to take your point the other way... to use a "gun possession" charge as an example.. would it not be equally wrong for someone who thinks guns are bad to side with the state against some individual because they feel it is for the greater good?

 

That is why we have 12 jurors instead of one or two, to reduce that risk. Plus, the judge can overturn a guilty verdict (but not a not-guilty verdict) if he feels that the required elements of the crime were not proven by the prosecution.

 

 

Think about it for a while. Once it clicks, your going to utter some colorful expletives.

 

Final thought. What if one day you got pulled over for having a tail light out and the police officer saw a hollowpoint bullet that had rolled out from under your seat. You're not on your way to the range. That's a fourth class crime, up to 18 months in prison and up to a $10k fine. Oh, and no more guns for you, forever. Should the jurors use common sense and good conscience, or reluctantly send you to prison? Wouldn't you be hoping for that one juror who knew about jury nullification? Jurors can and must nullify bad law. It's essential to our system of justice.

[vladtepes 1,060]

No problem at all. It's a good debate and those who read your points and mine may decide for themselves.

 

I did not know the jury had the power to change laws at will?

A juror can't change the law, but he can vote to acquit regardless of what the law says, based on his own good conscience.

 

what if a jury of ones peers decided selling crack cocaine is not really that big of a deal?

 

That is exactly what happened with prohibition. Juries refused to convict and eventually, prohibition was repealed. Yes, it can lead to a bad verdict, but that is the risk that goes along with putting jurors in charge of a man's fate. A much more dangerous system of justice is one in which the juror is denied the use of his sense of right and wrong, and must make a decision based solely on the letter of the law (and only that law which the judge allows him to consider) and the instructions provided by the judge on how to interpret and apply the law, regardless of whether or not he agrees with them. Why have a jury trial at all if the judge can manipulate what is presented to the jury, knowing that the jury has no choice. Plus, if there is only one juror who refuses to convict and the rest refuse to change their vote, then it is a mistrial and the case may be tried again. If there is another mistrial, the prosecutor may get the message and give up.

 

to take your point the other way... to use a "gun possession" charge as an example.. would it not be equally wrong for someone who thinks guns are bad to side with the state against some individual because they feel it is for the greater good?

 

That is why we have 12 jurors instead of one or two, to reduce that risk. Plus, the judge can overturn a guilty verdict (but not a not-guilty verdict) if he feels that the required elements of the crime were not proven by the prosecution.

 

 

Think about it for a while. Once it clicks, your going to utter some colorful expletives.

 

Final thought. What if one day you got pulled over for having a tail light out and the police officer saw a hollowpoint bullet that had rolled out from under your seat. You're not on your way to the range. That's a fourth class crime, up to 18 months in prison and up to a $10k fine. Oh, and no more guns for you, forever. Should the jurors use common sense and good conscience, or reluctantly send you to prison? Wouldn't you be hoping for that one juror who knew about jury nullification? Jurors can and must nullify bad law. It's essential to our system of justice.

 

I will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

I do not believe it is the right of the juror to use a case to use his own views to sway the outcome.. it is IMO the job of the juror to evaluate the law as it is written and as it applies to a given case.. NOT how it should be.. or how he or she wishes it to be.. it is the job of the people to change laws that they believe are wrong.. it is their job to be involved.. but I believe the time and place for that is not on a per case basis in a court.. the idea is to be completely impartial.. view the facts.. and deliver verdict..

 

there are far to many opportunities for abuse based on ones own corrupt moral compass..

"I am voting not guilty because I don't trust cops so if I vote not guilty it is like sticking it to the system.. evening it out if you will"

"my brother in law lost his life to a drunk driver.. even though I am not sure the evidence proves this person was drunk.. cops are normally right so I will vote guilty"

and so on..

it is IMO up to the juror to make a good faith impartial verdict based on the facts at hand and the laws that apply to the situation..

 

lets be real.. this guy was %100 wrong.. he broke the law.. and was careless with a firearm (in that he did not check the laws regarding them in the state he was going to be in).. I have little to no sympathy for people who make no effort... get into the murky gray areas and I have sympathy (ex: someone legally bought one of those GSG 22s.. ATF rules the fake can to be illegal.. and they never find out.. and then are arrested later..)... that IMO is a murky gray area.. and faulting someone in that instance is wrong if they did everything they could to be legal and ended up making an error.. carrying a handgun in NJ is blatant disregard IMO.. and should receive very minimal sympathy.. I do my job when it comes to being sure I am legal when carrying.. why shouldn't everyone else?

 

in regards to a hollowpoint rolling out from under my seat.. never say never.. but it is highly unlikely that would ever happen.. I understand your point.. but when it comes to the right of owning firearms.. I am VERY anal.. I do everything as best I can.. by the book.. in fact I normally put everything in the trunk.. not because I am required to.. but it simply leads to less possibility of an LEO fishing trip..

 

while I understand your point.. I make my best effort to honor and respect the law.. it is obvious this individual did not.. so he is ranking very low on the sympathy scale..

[damm834 0]

The fact is that the guy broke NJ laws, either he knew or not a law has been broken... Moreover the penalty for it is ridiculously wrong. The guy is going to get hammered as if he was caring it with bad intent. I mean don't get me wrong he should be penalized!! but, not like a criminal, specially if he is not one. Which the state of NJ makes you one as soon as you become a civilian with a firearm. The penalty for it should be something like... "Ok he proved that he has all proper paperwork for all his guns and cleared some kind of check up for any warrants or whatever, give him a hefty fine, take his guns make him pay for shipping to an FFL of his choice within the state that he resides or the state that he is licensed to carry and ok he goes on his way to wherever his way was". I think that would be severe enough for a gun owner traveling through NJ to make sure he checks twice the laws before he/she travels to another state. but now instead he is a criminal as if he had a career of doing crimes. Just like any other hoodlum that gets locked up every other week...

[vladtepes 1,060]

The fact is that the guy broke NJ laws, either he knew or not a law has been broken... Moreover the penalty for it is ridiculously wrong. The guy is going to get hammered as if he was caring it with bad intent. I mean don't get me wrong he should be penalized!! but, not like a criminal, specially if he is not one. Which the state of NJ makes you one as soon as you become a civilian with a firearm. The penalty for it should be something like... "Ok he proved that he has all proper paperwork for all his guns and cleared some kind of check up for any warrants or whatever, give him a hefty fine, take his guns make him pay for shipping to an FFL of his choice within the state that he resides or the state that he is licensed to carry and ok he goes on his way to wherever his way was". I think that would be severe enough for a gun owner traveling through NJ to make sure he checks twice the laws before he/she travels to another state. but now instead he is a criminal as if he had a career of doing crimes. Just like any other hoodlum that gets locked up every other week...

 

people break laws every day who are not actual criminals..

 

how many people a year you think waste away time in jail over simple drug possession charges..

one of my absent minded friends kept putting off parking tickets.. I ended up having to bail him out of jail, where he was forced to stay for 4 days with actual criminals.. he is an average blue collar worker... not a violent criminal bone in his body..

 

things happen.. they carry penalties.. want to stay out of trouble? simple.. do the right thing..

 

the problem with the recommendation you made is it would not stop most NJ residents who want to carry from carrying.. I have to be honest.. If the worst repercussions I faced as a NJ resident "illegally" carrying were fines.. I would carry every single day and play the odds... because I see it as far more worth paying a big fine the ONE isolated time I am caught in exchange for years of being able to carry..

[NJ609 22]

I will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

I do not believe it is the right of the juror to use a case to use his own views to sway the outcome..

 

Luckily for society you are wrong and Jury Nullification is something that CAN occur in the US. It's an intended part of our justice system. The reason it's not used is because Judges don't like it and RARELY instruct jurors that it's their RIGHT to utilize.

 

The masters do not like when the serfs use their powers.

 

Now, that's unrelated to this case. I'm just saying, JN exists for a very, VERY valid reason. And just like anything else it could be abused, but that is for a whole different thread....

[vladtepes 1,060]

Luckily for society you are wrong and Jury Nullification is something that CAN occur in the US. It's an intended part of our justice system. The reason it's not used is because Judges don't like it and RARELY instruct jurors that it's their RIGHT to utilize.

 

The masters do not like when the serfs use their powers.

 

Now, that's unrelated to this case. I'm just saying, JN exists for a very, VERY valid reason. And just like anything else it could be abused, but that is for a whole different thread....

 

I understand that.. I just don't agree with it..

[Malsua 1,422]

I understand that.. I just don't agree with it..

 

I think you need to look further into why there is a jury in the first place. A jury of your peers. The concept is that a jury will ultimately decide if you are punished and how severely. If the community around you has changed and the laws have not, the jury is there to make sure that the community at large is represented in the courtroom, not just officers of the law. Morals and standards change over time.

 

The community has a right not to punish a member if the jury feels it would be unjust. Look up Ken Rex McElroy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy A man was murdered in the street. Had it gone to trial, say BOB did it and had the judge instructed the jury that they could only decide on the LAW...The judge's instructions would be "You've heard the case and if you decide bob shot Ken McElroy not in self defense you, as the jury must convict Bob." If the jury was deciding strictly on the law, Bob would go to jail, but as with everything, there's always more to the story and the jury's duty is to weigh those things and decide accordingly.

[Dewhitewolf 8]

There are reasons that a judge would not allow a jury to hear particular pieces of evidence (in this case, that a defendant had carry permits from other states). There are the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence. Any evidence presented by either the prosecution or the defense has to fit these rules (the defense may try regardless in pre-trial motions to preserve the right to appeal on those grounds).

 

Since the defendant was charged with violating a state law (carrying a handgun without a permit), the judge could not allow the defense to present to the jury that the defendant had other carry permits. That is because the statute does not allow that as a defense to the charge. NJ's laws on affirmative defenses (yes I committed the act but I did so for a very good reason) are defined by statute, and therefore, if it does not exist by statute, the defense cannot assert it. So, unless the legislature passes a new law that allows defendants to present other carry permits as evidence, the defense cannot present it as evidence.

 

Speaking as a recent grand juror, I tried in many of the cases we had to hear to find some "avenue of innocence" when asking the prosecutor questions of fact regarding the charges presented to us. In every case (including weapon possession cases) that we heard, I tried to find some evidence that the defendant did not act maliciously, so that we could deliberate the possibility of returning a "no bill" ruling. Unfortunately, the prosecutor (actually a deputy attorney general) repeatedly stonewalled each effort by stating that the answer I sought was not relevant. That left us with only the testimony of the arresting officers and the recitation of the statutes violated to consider. What really sucks about NJ is that our system turns just about everything into a matter of law and so little to be considered as a matter of fact for a jury.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I think you need to look further into why there is a jury in the first place. A jury of your peers. The concept is that a jury will ultimately decide if you are punished and how severely. If the community around you has changed and the laws have not, the jury is there to make sure that the community at large is represented in the courtroom, not just officers of the law. Morals and standards change over time.

 

The community has a right not to punish a member if the jury feels it would be unjust. Look up Ken Rex McElroy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy A man was murdered in the street. Had it gone to trial, say BOB did it and had the judge instructed the jury that they could only decide on the LAW...The judge's instructions would be "You've heard the case and if you decide bob shot Ken McElroy not in self defense you, as the jury must convict Bob." If the jury was deciding strictly on the law, Bob would go to jail, but as with everything, there's always more to the story and the jury's duty is to weigh those things and decide accordingly.

 

 

deciding someones actions were in self defense are different than what I have discussed..

what I have discussed are instances where the flexibility of the juror to decide this that or the other would be abused.. I understand what you are all explaining.. and I grasp the point.. but think about society today.. think about who YOUR peers would be in court..how much flexibility should those people be allowed? when the gray area exists I understand.. "yes he killed him.. which is a crime.. but since it was self defense it was not a crime.." but in reference to THIS case.. the person was careless.. and IGNORED the law.. he did not break the law because the law is confusing.. he did not break the law because he was acting in an emergency situation... he did not break the law because he was mislead.. he simply broke the law because he chose to ignore it... certain items within our society require responsibility.. guns are one of those items.. if you are going to carry.. be a responsible gun owner and carry within the law..

 

I feel like the comments have gone WAY off track from my original postings.. obviously if the charge is murder.. and there is reason to believe a person killed someone in self defense.. then that is a juror.. taking the evidence and circumstance at hand and applying it to the law.. which is far different than thinking oh NJ gun laws are BS and unfair.. this guy is not guilty.. this guy is completely guilty.. irregardless of how fair or unfair the laws are..

[Malsua 1,422]

deciding someones actions were in self defense are different than what I have discussed..

what I have discussed are instances where the flexibility of the juror to decide this that or the other would be abused.. I understand what you are all explaining.. and I grasp the point.. but think about society today.. think about who YOUR peers would be in court..how much flexibility should those people be allowed? when the gray area exists I understand.. "yes he killed him.. which is a crime.. but since it was self defense it was not a crime.." but in reference to THIS case.. the person was careless.. and IGNORED the law.. he did not break the law because the law is confusing.. he did not break the law because he was acting in an emergency situation... he did not break the law because he was mislead.. he simply broke the law because he chose to ignore it... certain items within our society require responsibility.. guns are one of those items.. if you are going to carry.. be a responsible gun owner and carry within the law..

 

I feel like the comments have gone WAY off track from my original postings.. obviously if the charge is murder.. and there is reason to believe a person killed someone in self defense.. then that is a juror.. taking the evidence and circumstance at hand and applying it to the law.. which is far different than thinking oh NJ gun laws are BS and unfair.. this guy is not guilty.. this guy is completely guilty.. irregardless of how fair or unfair the laws are..

 

I think you need to read the full story behind Ken McElroy. He was murdered in cold blood. The issue was, the guy really really deserved it as he had terrorized the town for years. Not a soul in the town would help the police nor testify against the shooters. Had it gone to court, no one would have been convicted. That's the point. Sometimes the good of the community is not served by convicting someone for a crime. Sometimes no one is served by punishing what is simply a possession case. The cop should have told the man to put the gun away and get out of NJ but he didn't. The cop was a flaming AHOLE with a hard-on to make grade. The man was otherwise a law abiding citizen and these are the kinds of cases that SHOULD be nullified. No lesser or greater good is served by punishing this

person. Simply stating "Well the law is the law" is horseshit. When the laws are bad they should be nullified and ultimately repealed or changed, just as prohibition was as mentioned above.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I think you need to read the full story behind Ken McElroy. He was murdered in cold blood. The issue was, the guy really really deserved it as he had terrorized the town for years. Not a soul in the town would help the police nor testify against the shooters. Had it gone to court, no one would have been convicted. That's the point. Sometimes the good of the community is not served by convicting someone for a crime. Sometimes no one is served by punishing what is simply a possession case. The cop should have told the man to put the gun away and get out of NJ but he didn't. The cop was a flaming AHOLE with a hard-on to make grade. The man was otherwise a law abiding citizen and these are the kinds of cases that SHOULD be nullified. No lesser or greater good is served by punishing this

person. Simply stating "Well the law is the law" is horseshit. When the laws are bad they should be nullified and ultimately repealed or changed, just as prohibition was as mentioned above.

 

 

so then go open carry on the steps of the state capitol with an AR15 and a 100 round drum... and when you are arrested fight the fight... make your case for the greater good..

 

I will as stated respectfully disagree.. while I definitely do not agree with the law.. while I definitely do not agree with the punishment or course of action taken at times.. I respect the law.. I want it changed.. but I make every effort I can to follow it in the mean time.. Sure I speed once in a while when I am late for work.. but at the core I am a law abiding citizen, and therefore do my best to observe and follow the laws as they sit...

 

what you said about the cop in that part is dead right.. I had a friend get pulled over who lives in PA.. he had his Taurus in the glove box.. they did exactly what you said.. retrieved the gun.. unloaded it.. and made him put it in the trunk.. so I do agree with your part there that it was a cop just trying to be dominant.. but at the end of the day who is to blame more? the cop who did what he is paid to do? or the law abiding citizen who just broke the law?

 

I am really making every effort to not beat this to death.. but all the guy had to do is be a responsible gun owner..

Do YOU carry? if you do whos responsible for making sure it is legal where you are going? who do you rely on for that information? I am willing to bet that YOU make every effort in the world to operate within the law... like I stated earlier.. flash hiders.. things like that can be a gray area.. and in those cases I would feel sympathy.. but I have a hard time feeling bad when someone completely ignores the law..

[Babaganoosh 192]

It seems like the judge was protecting NJ's wacked laws by hiding the fact that the guy had carry permits from other states. God forbid the people find out that people legally get to carry a handgun in other states on the regular and that it's not a big deal.

[Bob B 103]

I will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

I do not believe it is the right of the juror to use a case to use his own views to sway the outcome.. it is IMO the job of the juror to evaluate the law as it is written and as it applies to a given case.. NOT how it should be.. or how he or she wishes it to be.. it is the job of the people to change laws that they believe are wrong.. it is their job to be involved.. but I believe the time and place for that is not on a per case basis in a court.. the idea is to be completely impartial.. view the facts.. and deliver verdict..

 

there are far to many opportunities for abuse based on ones own corrupt moral compass..

"I am voting not guilty because I don't trust cops so if I vote not guilty it is like sticking it to the system.. evening it out if you will"

"my brother in law lost his life to a drunk driver.. even though I am not sure the evidence proves this person was drunk.. cops are normally right so I will vote guilty"

and so on..

it is IMO up to the juror to make a good faith impartial verdict based on the facts at hand and the laws that apply to the situation..

 

lets be real.. this guy was %100 wrong.. he broke the law.. and was careless with a firearm (in that he did not check the laws regarding them in the state he was going to be in).. I have little to no sympathy for people who make no effort... get into the murky gray areas and I have sympathy (ex: someone legally bought one of those GSG 22s.. ATF rules the fake can to be illegal.. and they never find out.. and then are arrested later..)... that IMO is a murky gray area.. and faulting someone in that instance is wrong if they did everything they could to be legal and ended up making an error.. carrying a handgun in NJ is blatant disregard IMO.. and should receive very minimal sympathy.. I do my job when it comes to being sure I am legal when carrying.. why shouldn't everyone else?

 

in regards to a hollowpoint rolling out from under my seat.. never say never.. but it is highly unlikely that would ever happen.. I understand your point.. but when it comes to the right of owning firearms.. I am VERY anal.. I do everything as best I can.. by the book.. in fact I normally put everything in the trunk.. not because I am required to.. but it simply leads to less possibility of an LEO fishing trip..

 

while I understand your point.. I make my best effort to honor and respect the law.. it is obvious this individual did not.. so he is ranking very low on the sympathy scale..

 

No problem. I think sometimes we forget that we don't have to convince the other guy. I appreciate the honest debate.

[crackaloon 15]

Seems to me the law is 100% wrong. The jury should hear every bit of evidence about the guy being legal to carry in other states, gas stations that are self service, and the difference between right and wrong. Letting this guy off wouldn't hurt anyone, while putting him in jail hurts his whole family as well as him.

[Maksim 1,504]

I really dont know how I feel about this.

 

Ignorance is not an excuse, and lets be honest... if he has his CT license, and then knew enough to get a Florida CCW, he is smart enough to know that there are states that do not reciprocate. I am sure he was thinking.... "Oh, it is just an hour drive through NJ, I will be fine." and voila.

 

Keep in mind, he also broke NY law as well.

[Daedalus 19]

This is a fascinating thread. The argument that a jury can, and perhaps should, return a not guilty finding because they disagree with the law presents some interesting issues to consider:

 

Example 1: We don't like the defendant because he is old (I can say that!) so we will find him guilty even though we aren't sure he is.

 

Example 2: The defendant is a church-going man who made a mistake. Although it is clear he committed the crime we will find him not guilty because he is a charitable person.

 

Example 3: The defendant is clearly guilty but we disagree with the law so find him not guilty.

 

What is right and what is wrong? We are a country of laws. Our elected legislators create the laws on behalf of the citizens. Common law and common sense might justify any of the above example but that does not make it legal. I may be wrong on this. Can anyone cite the law which authorizes these variations?

 

It is a slippery slope we start down when we have jurors trying to change law. It is no better, and perhaps worse, than activist judges ruling not on the law but on their personal beliefs and prejudices. Think of the Ninth Circuit Court as the poster child for activist jurists.

 

This is all food for thought and honest discussion, not intended as criticism of any prior posts.

 

One last thing - I should have prefaced this post with the now famous disclosure: "IANAL, but......"!

[vladtepes 1,060]

This is a fascinating thread. The argument that a jury can, and perhaps should, return a not guilty finding because they disagree with the law presents some interesting issues to consider:

 

Example 1: We don't like the defendant because he is old (I can say that!) so we will find him guilty even though we aren't sure he is.

 

Example 2: The defendant is a church-going man who made a mistake. Although it is clear he committed the crime we will find him not guilty because he is a charitable person.

 

Example 3: The defendant is clearly guilty but we disagree with the law so find him not guilty.

 

What is right and what is wrong? We are a country of laws. Our elected legislators create the laws on behalf of the citizens. Common law and common sense might justify any of the above example but that does not make it legal. I may be wrong on this. Can anyone cite the law which authorizes these variations?

 

It is a slippery slope we start down when we have jurors trying to change law. It is no better, and perhaps worse, than activist judges ruling not on the law but on their personal beliefs and prejudices. Think of the Ninth Circuit Court as the poster child for activist jurists.

 

This is all food for thought and honest discussion, not intended as criticism of any prior posts.

 

One last thing - I should have prefaced this post with the now famous disclosure: "IANAL, but......"!

 

agreed.. to have a juror return a verdict based on ANYTHING but the facts of the case and the relevant law...

without following that mindset you open up for verdicts based on religion, race, ethnicity, and so on.. which is wrong.. we may not always agree with the law.. and we can try to change laws with time.. but I don't think that jurors should try to twist the law based on feelings..

[Malsua 1,422]

This is a fascinating thread. The argument that a jury can, and perhaps should, return a not guilty finding because they disagree with the law presents some interesting issues to consider:

 

 

 

It's quite difficult to get 12 people to agree to anything unless there's a very good reason for it, especially to convict an innocent person.

 

A Judge in some circumstances can set aside a verdict which could be nullification of Jury Nullification! It's also clear grounds for appeal.