I dont know if is a repost but scary stuff regarding NJ Gun laws and police vs Gun Owner

 

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake/

Already been posted

This has already been posted, and then reposted.

This has already been posted, and then reposted.

 

And then reposted, reposted again, and reposted once again.

More on Brian Aitken...

 

A Must Read: NJ Man's Ridiculous Gun Conviction

 

To buy a gun in New Jersey, you must go through a laborious process to obtain a "purchaser's permit." But that permit doesn't entitle you to possess a gun. A few select groups of people, mostly off-duty police officers and security personnel, can obtain carry permits. But anyone else with a gun is presumed to be violating state law and must defend against the charge of illegal gun possession by claiming one of the state's exemptions.

 

Evan Nappen, who is representing Aitken in his appeal, likens the process to claiming self-defense in a murder case. "If you kill someone because they're about to kill you first," he says, "you're still guilty of homicide. You have to prove you should be granted the exception for self-defense. It's the same thing for just about all New Jersey gun owners. You're guilty until you prove that you're innocent.”

 

The exemptions allow New Jersey residents to have guns in their homes, while hunting or at a shooting range, while traveling to or from hunting grounds or a shooting range, and when traveling between residences. Brian Aitken claimed he was moving between residences, and there is pretty strong evidence that he was. Sue Aitken testified that her son was moving his belongings from her house to his. So did Aitken's roommate. One of the police officers at the scene testified that Aitken's car was filled with personal belongings.

 

Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

 

In response to a query about why Aitken wasn't granted the moving exception, the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office replied via email, "There was no evidence produced at the trial by the defendant that warranted such a defense." Gilbert says that isn't true. "We put on plenty of evidence that Brian was moving," he says, "including testimony from his mother, his roommate, even the police officer who arrested him."

 

There is no evidence that Aitken threatened anyone with his guns or intended to use them for any nefarious purpose. Even the version of events least favorable to Aitken—that he put the guns in his trunk to keep them away from party guests who might have been drinking—shows him to be a responsible and conscientious gun owner. Even Morley acknowledges as much. "I can see the point that taking the guns away from the party might have been the responsible thing to do," he says. But he adds that acting responsibly did not entitle Aitken to the moving exception.

 

Putting Brian Aitken in prison isn't going to make New Jersey any safer. It might, however, make some of the state's residents think twice before calling the police, particularly if they own guns. It might even make some New Jersey gun owners wonder if they have more to fear from the state's ridiculous laws and overly aggressive cops and prosecutors than they do from criminals. Given what happened to Aitken, those fears wouldn't be unfounded.