CT Man busted in NJ for carrying gun

[vjf915 456]

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.

I don't think it could be explained in a better way. Laws are based on what we as a society deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Just like you said.....if society changes, but the laws have not.....then the jury can at least keep someone out of jail for it.

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.

......but then you went and messed it all up with this. Since when is a police officer a flaming Ahole for arresting someone for a serious crime? NJ has no laws or identification regarding CCW. His out of state licenses mean NOTHING at all here, especially to a police officer. There is absolutely no way in freakin' hell that a police officer should just let someone go when he finds out they are illegally carrying a loaded weapon on their hip. That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. So what the hell happens when the cop lets the guy go because he said he had permits in other states....and the guy turns out to be another Jared Loughner. What happens when the cop lets him go, and the guy shoots up a Shop Rite? Then everyone looks at the officer and he gets flamed, fired, and sued because he let him go!

[Babaganoosh 192]

Side note. The moron Plaxico Burress from the Giants had carry permits for other states. He carried his handgun illegally in his pants in NYC. He shot himself and got a two year sentence. He is in jail right now. Oh well.

[Bob B 103]

Vlad, Daedalus, If you were on the jury for Brian Aitken, how would you have voted?

[crackaloon 15]

This guy didn't shoot himself or anyone. Why would a jury not get to hear his background with guns when he's on trial for a weapon violation? If he were a veteran and upstanding member of local government they would hear that I'm fairly certain. If he were a transient bum or otherwise homeless they would hear that. Why is his background and life leading up to this particular crime irrelevant?

[Daedalus 19]

Vlad, Daedalus, If you were on the jury for Brian Aitken, how would you have voted?

 

I do not have all of the facts, nor what was presented to the jury. From what I have read he had one or more handguns in the trunk of his car, was not going to/from a range, dealer, etc., and was not in the process of moving the handgun(s) from another state to NJ (although that is less than clear).

 

If all of the above is true he would be in violation of 2C:39-5 and none of the exemptions in 2C:39-6 applied. If that was the charge, I would vote guilty.

 

That's a lot of "ifs".

[vladtepes 1,060]

Vlad, Daedalus, If you were on the jury for Brian Aitken, how would you have voted?

 

 

based on what I am aware of..

 

if he was genuinely moving from his permanent residence to his new permanent residence then he was not guilty of whatever variation of carrying a weapon he was charged with..

 

he did in fact have high capacity magazines.. that is a fact.. guilty..

he did in fact have hollow points while committing the crime of having high capacity ammunition.. guilty...

 

but for me guilty or not guilty was not really the problem with BA.. the problem I have in his situation is you have violent criminals picked up while illegally carrying stolen guns and I am sure that they are seeing similar sentences.. 7 years to an otherwise law abiding citizen is an absurd penalty IMO... it is not so much the guilty verdict.. because he was as far as I could tell guilty to some degree.. it is the insane sentence that he received that is the try travesty..

[mikelets456 78]

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...

 

I agree, but if the law is Unconstitutional then who is clearly breaking the law? Don't get me wrong, I understand completely what you are saying, but how is the state of NJ able to lawfully put this guy behind bars when the Federal courts made it clear that the 2nd amendment applies to the states? I know SAF has a lawsuit along with NRA and hope these horrible laws that protect criminals and punish honest citizens will be overturned.

[crackaloon 15]

That's another problem. Manditory sentencing, and the real problem of the intention of the initial law. I think many people would find a difference between a gang member and a guy going for a florida vacation.

[Bob B 103]

I do not have all of the facts, nor what was presented to the jury. From what I have read he had one or more handguns in the trunk of his car, was not going to/from a range, dealer, etc., and was not in the process of moving the handgun(s) from another state to NJ (although that is less than clear).

 

If all of the above is true he would be in violation of 2C:39-5 and none of the exemptions in 2C:39-6 applied. If that was the charge, I would vote guilty.

 

That's a lot of "ifs".

 

 

based on what I am aware of..

 

if he was genuinely moving from his permanent residence to his new permanent residence then he was not guilty of whatever variation of carrying a weapon he was charged with..

 

he did in fact have high capacity magazines.. that is a fact.. guilty..

he did in fact have hollow points while committing the crime of having high capacity ammunition.. guilty...

 

but for me guilty or not guilty was not really the problem with BA.. the problem I have in his situation is you have violent criminals picked up while illegally carrying stolen guns and I am sure that they are seeing similar sentences.. 7 years to an otherwise law abiding citizen is an absurd penalty IMO... it is not so much the guilty verdict.. because he was as far as I could tell guilty to some degree.. it is the insane sentence that he received that is the try travesty..

 

Interesting.

[Anselmo 87]

What plea did Brian turn down?

[Dan 177]

There is a concept called Letter and Spirit of the law. Following the letter of the law is in to follow in the literal as the words are written. Following the spirit of the law is to apply the law with the intent of the law's creators in mind.

 

I pose this hypothetical question. Family guy, 2 kids, no prior record, no obvious evidence of malicious activity, avid pistol shooter and likes to take 3-4 pistols to the range at a time... a pistol case containing an unloaded handgun fell behind some boxes in his trunk. It's there for a few days. Coming home from work, gets pulled over, submits to a search of the vehicle (LEO asked because the car fits a description of one in the area involved in a situation). Cop finds the pistol.

 

Do you think it is the intent of the NJ gun laws' creators for this person to be sent to prison for 7 years because he/she had a handgun in their trunk locked in a bag, and forgot to remove it the last time they went to the range? They after all where not going to and from a place of target shooting or repair, etc. In the literal sense they are guilty. This could really happen to anyone. Is it really the intent of the law in this case?

[crackaloon 15]

There is a concept called Letter and Spirit of the law. Following the letter of the law is in to follow in the literal as the words are written. Following the spirit of the law is to apply the law with the intent of the law's creators in mind.

 

I pose this hypothetical question. Family guy, 2 kids, no prior record, no obvious evidence of malicious activity, avid pistol shooter and likes to take 3-4 pistols to the range at a time... a pistol case containing an unloaded handgun fell behind some boxes in his trunk. It's there for a few days. Coming home from work, gets pulled over, submits to a search of the vehicle (LEO asked because the car fits a description of one in the area involved in a situation). Cop finds the pistol.

 

Do you think it is the intent of the NJ gun laws' creators for this person to be sent to prison for 7 years because he/she had a handgun in their trunk locked in a bag, and forgot to remove it the last time they went to the range? They after all where not going to and from a place of target shooting or repair, etc. In the literal sense they are guilty. This could really happen to anyone. Is it really the intent of the law in this case?

There ya go, that's a good example. And of course the answer is that the guy clearly broke the law and should do 7 years.

[karcirate 1]

I think one missing point nobody has made is that jury nullification is really only used to return a not guilty verdict. If a jury goes against the law and finds someone guilty, the judge should, and usually will, direct a not guilty verdict.

 

So the jury has the option to acquit someone who they feel should not be punished for whatever reason, but they can't convict someone just because they do not like him.

[vladtepes 1,060]

There is a concept called Letter and Spirit of the law. Following the letter of the law is in to follow in the literal as the words are written. Following the spirit of the law is to apply the law with the intent of the law's creators in mind.

 

I pose this hypothetical question. Family guy, 2 kids, no prior record, no obvious evidence of malicious activity, avid pistol shooter and likes to take 3-4 pistols to the range at a time... a pistol case containing an unloaded handgun fell behind some boxes in his trunk. It's there for a few days. Coming home from work, gets pulled over, submits to a search of the vehicle (LEO asked because the car fits a description of one in the area involved in a situation). Cop finds the pistol.

 

Do you think it is the intent of the NJ gun laws' creators for this person to be sent to prison for 7 years because he/she had a handgun in their trunk locked in a bag, and forgot to remove it the last time they went to the range? They after all where not going to and from a place of target shooting or repair, etc. In the literal sense they are guilty. This could really happen to anyone. Is it really the intent of the law in this case?

 

 

that is where we disagree.. in having dealt with several members of this forum IRL.. and having had in depth conversations with many other I do not believe that any responsible gun owner would neglect to realize he is missing a gun.. the scenario IMO is pretty far fetched... if I bring several guns to the range and "forget one" in the trunk.. I think I would know as I went to put my guns back in the safe.. a gun is not a cell phone... can of soda.. pair of sunglasses... ownership demands a certain amount of responsibility.. securing your firearms is IMO one of the most basic responsibilities..

[Dan 177]

There ya go, that's a good example. And of course the answer is that the guy clearly broke the law and should do 7 years.

 

You feel the intent of the law is to punish this guy in the example? Keep him from his kids for 7 years, permanent record, probably screw up his career, take away his right to ever own firearms for an honest mistake?

 

There is also something called selective enforcement aka. police discretion. In which a LEO could decide to not apply the letter of the law under the circumstances. Examples are typically found in small infractions, such as a LEO not pulling you over for 1MPH over the speed limit; getting caught with fireworks on the 4th of July and not arresting you. By the letter of the law you are guilty and should get a ticket/arrested.

 

I'm just giving examples of how it is plausible to be caught breaking the law, yet not have action taken against you. What is the difference of the LEO not charging you with the law you obviously broke (selective enforcement/discretion), or a jury applying it in court by issuing a "not guilty" decision in court. Are the police somehow allowed to do this and citizens are not? In both situations it is obvious you broke the law, and the outcomes are similar... you get off free.

[Anselmo 87]

I think crack was being sarcastic.

 

I think there is some discretion. Look at the guy from CT. He was given probation and he had a loaded weapon in a holster on his body.

[crackaloon 15]

Yes, Dan I was being sarcastic. I'm glad I didn't tell the story about driving home in a rain storm and running in the house forgetting my 9mm in the trunk for 10 minutes. I guess I have found a way to get my wife out of my hair and in jail for 7 years.

[vladtepes 1,060]

You feel the intent of the law is to punish this guy in the example? Keep him from his kids for 7 years, permanent record, probably screw up his career, take away his right to ever own firearms for an honest mistake?

 

There is also something called selective enforcement aka. police discretion. In which a LEO could decide to not apply the letter of the law under the circumstances. Examples are typically found in small infractions, such as a LEO not pulling you over for 1MPH over the speed limit; getting caught with fireworks on the 4th of July and not arresting you. By the letter of the law you are guilty and should get a ticket/arrested.

 

I'm just giving examples of how it is plausible to be caught breaking the law, yet not have action taken against you. What is the difference of the LEO not charging you with the law you obviously broke (selective enforcement/discretion), or a jury applying it in court by issuing a "not guilty" decision in court. Are the police somehow allowed to do this and citizens are not? In both situations it is obvious you broke the law, and the outcomes are similar... you get off free.

 

 

there is an astronomical difference between going 5mph over the speed limit while cruising on the parkway and misplacing a firearm.. just to call back to the example used a few posts back.. NEVER in a million years could I imagine saying something like "oh wow there is my Glock guess it fell out of my range bag and rolled under the spare tire in the trunk"... if I was not sure where one of my guns was I would have an enormously high level of concern..

[crackaloon 15]

Perfect actually! My wife grew up in AZ. If I go to the range with her and then leave my gun in the trunk, if she gets pulled over later she's gone for 7 years in some people's court because she didn't become a lawyer.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Yes, Dan I was being sarcastic. I'm glad I didn't tell the story about driving home in a rain storm and running in the house forgetting my 9mm in the trunk for 10 minutes. I guess I have found a way to get my wife out of my hair and in jail for 7 years.

 

 

the fact remains that even with rushing around.. even with pouring rain.. and being distracted by god only knows what else.. you went out as soon as 10 minutes later and grabbed it.. its not like you just forgot about it for days, and had this casual no worries attitude about it..

[crackaloon 15]

the fact remains that even with rushing around.. even with pouring rain.. and being distracted by god only knows what else.. you went out as soon as 10 minutes later and grabbed it.. its not like you just forgot about it for days, and had this casual no worries attitude about it..

If the wife was waiting for the car and took off just as I pulled up and she got pulled over for some reason....well I'd be a happy man right now.

[Dan 177]

there is an astronomical difference between going 5mph over the speed limit while cruising on the parkway and misplacing a firearm.. just to call back to the example used a few posts back.. NEVER in a million years could I imagine saying something like "oh wow there is my Glock guess it fell out of my range bag and rolled under the spare tire in the trunk"... if I was not sure where one of my guns was I would have an enormously high level of concern..

 

I'm not debating the how serious the difference is in going 5mph over the speed limit versus misplacing a gun in your trunk, just the concept. I understand it is serious that he didn't realize he left a handgun in the car. Now is it the intent of the law is to send him to prison for 7 years for doing it.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I'm not debating the how serious the difference is in going 5mph over the speed limit versus misplacing a gun in your trunk, just the concept. I understand it is serious that he didn't realize he left a handgun in the car. Now is it the intent of the law is to send him to prison for 7 years for doing it.

 

to my knowledge.. NJ law does not distinguish illegal carry based on intent.. which at the core IS probably the problem.. no one should be carrying in NJ without a LTC.. but the fact that the law views a soccer mom driving her husbands car that had a gun in the trunk they overlooked in the same context as a deranged "gang banger" bent on holding people up IS a problem.. but at the moment.. the law is the law.. if we don't like it.. we have two choices.. move to a state that mirrors ours views more closely.. OR motivate the society found within this state to change..

[Daedalus 19]

to my knowledge.. NJ law does not distinguish illegal carry based on intent.. which at the core IS probably the problem.. no one should be carrying in NJ without a LTC.. but the fact that the law views a soccer mom driving her husbands car that had a gun in the trunk they overlooked in the same context as a deranged "gang banger" bent on holding people up IS a problem.. but at the moment.. the law is the law.. if we don't like it.. we have two choices.. move to a state that mirrors ours views more closely.. OR motivate the society found within this state to change..

 

Bingo - we have a winner! The laws in NJ concerning firearms rot (as do others) but it is what it is. The only way to improve the situation is to get the law changed. Of course, as Vlad said, the alternative is to move from the Peoples Liberal Republik of New Jersey. If only I could! Don't confuse logic or what is right with the law: the law will always win.

[Bob B 103]

that is where we disagree.. in having dealt with several members of this forum IRL.. and having had in depth conversations with many other I do not believe that any responsible gun owner would neglect to realize he is missing a gun.. the scenario IMO is pretty far fetched... if I bring several guns to the range and "forget one" in the trunk.. I think I would know as I went to put my guns back in the safe.. a gun is not a cell phone... can of soda.. pair of sunglasses... ownership demands a certain amount of responsibility.. securing your firearms is IMO one of the most basic responsibilities..

 

 

I guarantee that most active gun owners in NJ have violated NJ's firearms possession laws on multiple occasions without realizing it.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I guarantee that most active gun owners in NJ have violated NJ's firearms possession laws on multiple occasions without realizing it.

 

 

while I without question KNOW that to be the case... there is no relevance between that fact and our ridiculous gun laws..

 

just because some people accidentally purchase muzzle devices that end up being flash hiders (putting them over the "evil count")..

does not give you the freedom to do so..

 

just because BA got caught with high cap magazines AND had his sentence commuted..

does not give you the right to own a 100 round drum..

 

as pointed out already the core of the problem is simple when it comes to law in NJ.. it is written by people who have literally no understanding of firearms.. it is written in a tone to demonize items without any consideration to actions and intent..

 

we as gun owners can bang our heads against the wall talking about how ridiculous it is that BA got 7 years... but guess what.. at the end of the day he broke the law.. to fix it? we need to get out there and change the law.. arguing that the guy from CT didn't intend to do wrong is a moot point.. lets harness all this energy on making change.. not defending people who already broke the law.. most of us.. are law abiding gun owners.. we follow the law.. which will make rallying behind people who break it a tough sell..

[Anselmo 87]

BA got 7 years because he wouldn't take the plea offered. What was the plea? I'd like to know.

[Bob B 103]

BA got 7 years because he wouldn't take the plea offered. What was the plea? I'd like to know.

 

One year in prison and 5 on probation.

[Dan 177]

Not sure where we got derailed here. The conversation was regarding if it is right or wrong for a jury in some cases to give a not guilty verdict when in fact someone broke a gun law in a literal sense of the wording of the law.

 

I am not looking to start a mass civil disobedience or anything like that, and start proclaiming people should just start disregarding laws. Just saying when people do get caught up, and it does wind up in court, I hope the jury weighs the literal and spirit of the laws being applied in the case. Same goes for the judge when sentencing. No matter how evil the state legislators that drew up our gun laws are, I sure hope their original intent was not to lock up an upstanding citizen for stopping at his parents for dinner with a gun in the trunk before heading to the range for instance.

 

Also, there is no argument that NJ laws are absurd and need to be changed.

 

vladtepes, on 12 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

 

that is where we disagree.. in having dealt with several members of this forum IRL.. and having had in depth conversations with many other I do not believe that any responsible gun owner would neglect to realize he is missing a gun.. the scenario IMO is pretty far fetched... if I bring several guns to the range and "forget one" in the trunk.. I think I would know as I went to put my guns back in the safe.. a gun is not a cell phone... can of soda.. pair of sunglasses... ownership demands a certain amount of responsibility.. securing your firearms is IMO one of the most basic responsibilities..

 

It is not very constructive to disagree with a hypothetical situation. No matter how far fetched, IF it did happen and you were on the jury, would you vote to send him to prison or not. If it makes you feel better substitute with something else, like my example above... stopping at parent's/friend's house to grab dinner... or taking your rifle to your friend's house for help lining up a scope.. etc

[Bob B 103]

while I without question KNOW that to be the case... there is no relevance between that fact and our ridiculous gun laws..

 

just because some people accidentally purchase muzzle devices that end up being flash hiders (putting them over the "evil count")..

does not give you the freedom to do so..

 

just because BA got caught with high cap magazines AND had his sentence commuted..

does not give you the right to own a 100 round drum..

 

as pointed out already the core of the problem is simple when it comes to law in NJ.. it is written by people who have literally no understanding of firearms.. it is written in a tone to demonize items without any consideration to actions and intent..

 

we as gun owners can bang our heads against the wall talking about how ridiculous it is that BA got 7 years... but guess what.. at the end of the day he broke the law.. to fix it? we need to get out there and change the law.. arguing that the guy from CT didn't intend to do wrong is a moot point.. lets harness all this energy on making change.. not defending people who already broke the law.. most of us.. are law abiding gun owners.. we follow the law.. which will make rallying behind people who break it a tough sell..

 

it is written by people who have literally no understanding of firearms.. it is written in a tone to demonize items without any consideration to actions and intent..

That is exactly why nullification is essential. What if all gun owning jurors refused to convict during cases of simple possession that did not involve criminal intent. That would send a heck of a message.

 

lets harness all this energy on making change.

Agreed, we're working on it.