Brian Aitken to Sue

[Bob B 103]

I suppose I have to re-read the information about the case. I was under the impression that the majority of his sentence was the result of illegal possession of a handgun, and that the whole hubub with the judge was that he would not allow the possession exemptions to be used discussed or used by the jury in their deliberation.

 

"possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes" would mean they were able to prove that he intended to use the gun for unlawful purposes, as in committing a crime against persons or property with it.

 

 

"Possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose" is a violation of 2C:39-4a. Aitken was convicted of "Unlawful possession of a handgun," a violation of 2C:39-5b.

 

2C:39-4 makes it illegal for a person to possess a firearm with the intent to use it against the person or property of another.

2C:39-7 makes it illegal for a person with criminal history, or a history of mental illness to possess any firearm.

 

That means that 2C:39-5 is a series of constraints that only apply to law-abiding citizens - becaus all criminals already may not possess firearms for any reason.

(Same thing with the AWB. Criminals already can't possess any firearm, so the AWB only limits possession for the law-abiding.)

 

So, for a juror, if the offense is a violation of 2C:39-5b, that is immediately a red flag. It's an indication that the prosecutor has no evidence that there was any criminal activity, past or present. And, since there is no way for an average citizen to obtain the permit required by 2C:39-5b, then the law is specifically being used to create a ban on handgun possession by law-abiding citizens.

 

There are two ways to fix this. 1. Delete 2C:39-5b (no carry without permit). 2. Allow qualified citizens to get carry permits (eliminate justifiable need).

 

Aitken needed Johnny Cocran. If it's 2C:39-5b, then you must set him free!

[Anselmo 87]

"Possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose" is a violation of 2C:39-4a. Aitken was convicted of "Unlawful possession of a handgun," a violation of 2C:39-5b.

 

2C:39-4 makes it illegal for a person to possess a firearm with the intent to use it against the person or property of another.

2C:39-7 makes it illegal for a person with criminal history, or a history of mental illness to possess any firearm.

 

That means that 2C:39-5 is a series of constraints that only apply to law-abiding citizens - becaus all criminals already may not possess firearms for any reason.

(Same thing with the AWB. Criminals already can't possess any firearm, so the AWB only limits possession for the law-abiding.)

 

So, for a juror, if the offense is a violation of 2C:39-5b, that is immediately a red flag. It's an indication that the prosecutor has no evidence that there was any criminal activity, past or present. And, since there is no way for an average citizen to obtain the permit required by 2C:39-5b, then the law is specifically being used to create a ban on handgun possession by law-abiding citizens.

 

There are two ways to fix this. 1. Delete 2C:39-5b (no carry without permit). 2. Allow qualified citizens to get carry permits (eliminate justifiable need).

 

Aitken needed Johnny Cocran. If it's 2C:39-5b, then you must set him free!

 

 

Any possession of a gun in NJ is assumed to be for criminal activity unless you have an exemption. They don't have to prove criminal intent, it is assumed and you have to prove non-criminal intent.

[Shane45 807]

Understand one thing, most of the politiciens of today, especially on the other side, dont seem to have the capacity to fathom ANY of this. So I think its good because the point that will be stuck in their head is, uh oh we got sued on gun rights.