ianargent

Note that elsewhere the legal presumption is that if you are not in possession of the paperwork, you are considered not to have between issued the paperwork. Essentially you well be arrested and let the judge sort it out. Carry your FID if you have an unloaded longarm.

That's the other thing, everyone assumes that Mr. Aitken got the only chance of this defense working. Which, since the appellate decision referenced a case where an expert witness certified that a magazine was a high-cap one, is probably a faulty assumption. The failure to prove the magazine fed ammo likely was an oversight on the prosecution's part. And the judge siezed on it. A sound ruling on the facts, but a really wonky set of fact. All that would have upset the apple cart would have been if the cops had taken the time to run a magazine through the gun at some point - then the police witness could have testified to the fact that the magazine fed the gun. Make no mistake, I don't believe this was a pro-gun decision. The judge took the opportunity to rule out of play the two charges that are least likely to survive the federal judiciary. I honestly don't think the hollowpoint appeal will succeed at the federal level, not with this generation's judiciary. I'm open to being surprised (I wouldn't have expected Heller to succeed when it was still Parker vs DC, either).

More succinctly, I believe that allowing the state to "cheat to win" in any circumstance is worse than allowing a guilty person to go free; because they won't stop at guilty people.

The state did not demonstrate in open court or by expert testimony that the magazines in question were capable of feeding rounds. Therefore, the state failed to prove that the magazines were high capacity by the letter of the law. As it happens, I once overstuffed a magazine by one round (it was a ten-round magazine, so it doesn't matter). The magazine did, in fact, fail to feed with the extra round in it. I would sure as hell hope if I did that to a 15-round magazine that the prosecution be required not only to load it to 16 rounds, but that they demonstrate that the magazine would then feed. Also, see the last footnote, the procedural errors on the state's part would not prevent them from retrying Brian Aitken and demonstrating that the magazines in fact did feed; the Governor's commutation does that (effectively). So, he didn't "get off" on a technicality, he "got off" because the governor commuted his sentence. Otherwise the state could effectively retry him and nail him for, what, seven years or so on the magazine charge? (Leaving out the handgun possession issue - that could go either way based on the jury). As it happens, while the acquittal on two of the three charges is probably a relief to Mr. Aitken, he is still a convicted felon on charge 3 (the possession of hollowpoints outside an exemption), and since he cannot appeal the charges he is acquitted of, they can't be struck down by a different court - preserving the laws themselves. These procedural rules don't exist to protect the obviously guilty; they exist to prevent the state from trumping up charges on insufficient evidence. What if the cop who can't get you on "transport" decides to get you on magazines because your converted mags say "20 rnds" or "30 rnds"? Once in place, they protect everyone. It is a bedrock principle of anglo-american common law that it is better for one guilty man to go free than 10 innocents be punished (Blackstone). In this case, Brain Aitken is that "guilty" man. But this same decision will protect the posessor of a converted magazine in case someone manages to jam an extra round into it, as long as it doesn't feed. (Yes, I believe that if the state retried him, they could demonstrate that the magazine was capable of feeding 16 rounds and he would be convicted of same. They should either have used a qualified expert or test-fired the magazines the first time around and saved some embarrassment. As for the "innocent purchaser", well, test the magazines before buying; or as conveniently as possible afterwards.)

The appellate decision is about standards of evidence and fairness of process. He is presumed innocent until convicted in a fair trial by presentation of evidence that established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge ensured an unfair trial and prosecution didn't show enough evidence to prove the magazine was in fact a high-cap magazine. We can "know" all we like, but it had to be properly proven. As I said at the end, normally, this wouldn't matter, the state world get a second chance to do so (and, technically they could take that chance still.) They won't because it doesn't get them anything, and exposes the laws in question to overturn on appeal. If you really seriously believe that the government can cut corners on any prosecution because the defendant is "obviously" guilty, then you and I really can't argue, because we have incompatible first principles. The appellate case was not about guilt our innocence, or the facts of the case (it never is.) It was about the process; did the state dot their i's and cross their t's and they didn't. If you think Brian Aitken should stand convicted of those two charges, reserve your ire for the trial judge and the prosecutor who ignored basic rules of justice.

Did I forget to add my sarcasm tag? Amusingly enough, when I bought a rifle there, I was explicitly told that the soft, zippered, car I bought to put it in counted as a "securely tied" car for the purposes of transporting it home... (I wasn't all that worried about it since I had obtained a FID prior to possessing an unloaded rifle, so didn't netted to case it.) Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

I read the opinion. He did not "get off on a technicality" any more than a football team scores 2 points on a safety, or a baseball player is required to touch all three based to score a home run, or the entire Bill of Rights are "technicalities." The judge and the prosecution screwed up by the numbers. The judge, by not allowing the jury to hear of the exemptions and make the judgment as to whether Brian Aitken's testimony as to whether or not he was "moving" was credible. (Note that his alleged statement of wanting to remove the firearms from the party in Hoboken is not inconsistent with moving between residences if he legitimately has two residences.) The judge is the arbiter of law, but the jury is the arbiter of fact. It is explicitly not the judge's role to determine if Brian Aitken's claim of the moving exemption was credible, and this judge usurped that role by falling to tell the jury that there was such an exemption. This is basic American Legal Procedure 101 stuff. As the appellate court judge noted in his decision, if the lack of a jury instruction had been harmless, he wouldn't have reversed. The prosecution screwed up by not putting a certified "expert" on the stand, or by demonstrating in open court that the magazines in question had all the properties required to be considered a large capacity magazine. Again, this is basic American Legal Procedure 101 stuff that had nothing to do with the charges at hand. Testimony by an uncertified expert is hearsay, effectively. This is a procedural safeguard against people making stuff up on the fly, the way a lot of cops seem to do about gun laws when you ask them. The whole subject of expert witnesses is a complicated one in general, but the rule of having to have them certified prior is a well-established one. Finally, normally the appellate judge's decision would not have quashed the charges. The case would have gone back to the lower court to be retried, so that a new jury could hear about the exemption for moving and the prosecution could either demonstrate in open court that the magazines functioned with 16 rounds or produced a certified expert to testify that they did so. The state is not going to do so for two reasons (one stated and one unstated): first, they can't do anything to him if they find him guilty on those two charges, as his sentence was commuted. They would spend a lot more money to tell him at the end "you're still a free man." Secondly, Brian Aitken can no longer appeal those convictions to a higher court. The laws in question are safe from being found unconstitutional in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions by a federal appeals court or even SCOTUS. In short, Brian Aitken had two of the three charges against him dropped because the judge and prosecution made "rookie" errors in their case against him because they thought that getting a "gun criminal" off the streets was worth cutting corners. The state is not allowed to cut corners in a criminal case, because that makes it too easy to railroad people. Normally they'd get a "do-over," but the state is opting not to take it, to save money and to preserve the laws in question. That's called "the rule of law." And, quite frankly, we need more of it in this country.

There's a tension between showing your plans to your supporters and leaking those plans to your enemies. In this case, I'd say that "below-the'radar" is justified (right now).

Um, if the other two convictions were overturned, he was not in possession of hollowpoints while committing a crime. (He was in possession of hollowpoints outside the exemptions, as of this writing). I wouldn't say that he "got away with it" either. He's still (currently) a convicted felon, without visitation rights to his child, and spent, what, almost a year in jail? Over illegal posession of hollowpoints (most likely due to a poorly written law - I'm pretty sure all of us considered the restrictions on hollowpoints to be functionally equivalent to the ones for handguns - which DO include a "transport between residences" clause). I dont' understand the negative view of his actions; the alternative is to basically strike out the transport between residences clause in legal pistol posession the way the 30-day requirement for issuance of paperwork was struck out. As for the magazine thing, I sure as hell hope the judge required them to prove that the magazines could feed ammo - I once jammed 11 rounds into one of my G17 mags accidentally - thank god I don't own a G19 and did the same thing to one of those mags, right?

My wife and I bought two handguns there a while back and carried them out of the store in the cases, nothing said about locks at all. and when I bought a rifle, same thing. Sounds like an overly helpful clerk.

The map appeared to distinguish between may-issue states where the PTB usually will issue vs where they usually won't. That was all I was commenting on.

I'm not sure that map is right, though - I had been given to understand that Delaware was, if not shall-issue, at least "will-issue," by people who live there. At any rate, it looks like it's a pain in the a** - http://deloc.org/ccdw.php (the most objectionable requirement is the advertisment one - that's sort of unique)

If we had NICS (hah) I understand that you can get an identifier from BATFE to avoid getting the "hold" - but that it's a process to do so and not free.

And today's phrase of the day is "reversible error", or "never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake." Seriously, they couldn't manage to keep their story straight to that extent?

That's essentially what I meant by reversible error. Appeals succeed not because of the facts (those are generally considered set in stone at the initial court level), but because of judicial error, one of which is to show favoritism towards one side or another. There's little wrong for our side (other than taking a little longer time) for the judge to grant a certain amount of leeway to the NJSP. Either he rules for us at the end, and the NJSP argument for appeal is weakened by the extra chances they got; or he rules against us after showing bias towards the NJSP side.

Laying groundwork?

Which means he's doing them (and his reversal record) no favors by extending them excessive courtesy.

Well, favoritism towards one side is a reversible error, no?

I been given to understand that this type of generous extension period will help our side if an appeal is necessary, and possibly hurt the state if they have to appeal.

Because annoying the judge is a Bad Idea.

Up to the property owner - PA recognizes the FL ticket,

It's carry anywhere outside your home state with a permit issued by any state. So, get a FL ticket, carry in Central Park (tee hee), but not Highland Park (rats).

Last I heard, even after amendment, HR822 didn't grant any additional right to carry for residents in their own state. And I read the actual bill after amendment (it's not that long - go to the source)

HR 822 would not, however.

We had 59 yes votes in senate last time, and every one of those senators at still in office.