http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/local/christie-says-nj-gun-laws-overreaching-offered-pardon-in-mount/article_e387207a-e25d-11e5-8f0a-ab455d0934dc.html

 

Article in today's Burlington County Times saying that Brian Aitken declined Christie's attempt to pardon him for the hollow point bullets charges he received.

 

I am a little confused by the article because it says he denied the pardon because he wants to appeal the charges. But at the end of the article it says he has exhausted all his appeals.

 

"Aitken, who has moved out of New Jersey, has written a book about his ordeal and the case's lasting impact, claiming on social media that a Family Court judge has refused to grant him visitation rights with his son because of his conviction. He has exhausted all his appeals."

 

So which is it?

 

I agree with Brian on appealing the charges. If he takes the pardon, the draconian gun laws "go away" until the next person is arrested.

 

 

 

 

This is very old news. This was the original arrangement Christie offered that got him out of jail. There were rumors back then that Aitken passed up a pardon because he wanted to appeal and set case law. This seems to jive with that.

 he wanted to appeal and set case law.

 

Well he seems to have set case law, though not in the way he intended.

Well he seems to have set case law, though not in the way he intended.

Well, he broke a lot of laws. Don't shoot the messenger.

Well, he broke a lot of state laws. Don't shoot the messenger.

Ftfy

Well he seems to have set case law, though not in the way he intended.

 

Very true.

 

Heard him speak once at an NJ2AS meeting a year or so ago.  Seemed like a decent guy who got caught in the NJ web.

I would recommend his book to anyone in our community who has not read it.  There but for the grace of god...

Are you sure they don't mean he has exhausted all appeals in the case of visitation rights - not the gun charges?

Well, he broke a lot of laws. Don't shoot the messenger.

I think the only law he may have broken is the standard high capacity magazine law, although that was never proven in court.

Oh, and the HP law, but that was only because he was moving (between residences) and not going to/from the range.

And I believe this does set case law: don't assume you are fine to transport HP from one of your homes or lands to another.  You need to stop at a range first.

The Aitken case, and others like it, have a chilling effect on our free exercise of constitutional rights in PRNJ.

I think the only law he may have broken is the standard high capacity magazine law, although that was never proven in court.

Oh, and the HP law, but that was only because he was moving (between residences) and not going to/from the range.

And I believe this does set case law: don't assume you are fine to transport HP from one of your homes or lands to another.  You need to stop at a range first.

And possession of handguns. His Roommate said he had the handguns at the apartment before. He wasn't moving them to a new residence, he was driving around with them, or at least back and forth,

 

- Mags over 15

- Possession of hollowpoints

- Possession of handguns

 

Guilty of all three in my mind based on the evidence that was published in the media.

And possession of handguns. His Roommate said he had the handguns at the apartment before. He wasn't moving them to a new residence, he was driving around with them, or at least back and forth,

 

- Mags over 15

- Possession of hollowpoints

- Possession of handguns

 

Guilty of all three in my mind based on the evidence that was published in the media.

 

And possession of handguns. His Roommate said he had the handguns at the apartment before. He wasn't moving them to a new residence, he was driving around with them, or at least back and forth,

 

- Mags over 15

- Possession of hollowpoints

- Possession of handguns

 

Guilty of all three in my mind based on the evidence that was published in the media.

"Evidence that was published in the media."

Exactly.  Does not matter what the media says or what you think.  Guilty is adjudicated in a court of law, where  Aitken was proven not guilty on counts 1 and 3.  The court (evidently they did not consider the evidence in the media) determined he was under the moving exemption.   Count two was upheld because there is no moving exemption for the HP charge.

The mags over 15 charge was dropped on a technicality.  The law states:

 

 

 

"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

 

Nappen argued that the state only tested his magazines for capacity and not the ability to feed "continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm" and that argument was sustained.  Had the state shown that his magazines *worked* in his handguns Aitken likely would have been convicted of that too. Something to remember in case you're ever involved in legal action on magazine capacity.

 

I attended one of Aitken's presentations and bought his book.  I asked him in person if he was aware of the NJ magazine cap limit before he moved to NJ and his answer was, roughly,  "I called the NJSP about gun laws before I came to NJ and they didn't mention anything about mag limits".

... I attended one of Aitken's presentations and bought his book.  I asked him in person if he was aware of the NJ magazine cap limit before he moved to NJ and his answer was, roughly,  "I called the NJSP about gun laws before I came to NJ and they didn't mention anything about mag limits".

Pinocchio.jpg

 

Yeah.....  He didn't deserve what happened to him in any rational sense, but still, this was the image in my head at that point in time:

 

"Evidence that was published in the media."

Exactly. Does not matter what the media says or what you think. Guilty is adjudicated in a court of law, where Aitken was proven not guilty on counts 1 and 3. The court (evidently they did not consider the evidence in the media) determined he was under the moving exemption. Count two was upheld because there is no moving exemption for the HP charge.

Aitken was not "proven not guilty" of amything.

 

Firstly, it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt. One doesn't need to prove yourself not guilty unless you are being tried someplace that uses a Napoleanic legal code.

 

Secondly, the gun possession conviction was vacated because the judge failed to instruct the jury regarding the moving exemption. The fact is he was not apparently moving according to his room mate at the time. He was driving around with them.

 

The magazine possession conviction was vacated because they were not tested for function as the statute says.

 

 

Aitken was a actually guilty of all 3 charges. He got off on two of them because of a "technicality". Just like gangbangers get off on technicalities.

 

Aitken is not a poster boy for anything positive IMO.

Aitken was not "proven not guilty" of amything.

 

Firstly, it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt. One doesn't need to prove yourself not guilty unless you are being tried someplace that uses a Napoleanic legal code.

 

 

This is NJ.  Once you are in possession of a handgun and they prove that, the burden of proof now shifts to you to show HOW you are exempt.  The law says (for instance) "Possession of a handgun is illegal"  Then it goes and carves out very very narrow exemptions and it is up to YOU (and your counsel) to prove how you are exempt.  The burden of proof on the prosecution is a very low standard in NJ.  This will be why the "Actor" charged with menacing with an airsoft handgun will have an exceedingly hard time in court.

Aitken was not "proven not guilty" of amything.

 

Firstly, it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt. One doesn't need to prove yourself not guilty unless you are being tried someplace that uses a Napoleanic legal code.

 

Secondly, the gun possession conviction was vacated because the judge failed to instruct the jury regarding the moving exemption. The fact is he was not apparently moving according to his room mate at the time. He was driving around with them.

 

The magazine possession conviction was vacated because they were not tested for function as the statute says.

 

 

Aitken was a actually guilty of all 3 charges. He got off on two of them because of a "technicality". Just like gangbangers get off on technicalities.

 

Aitken is not a poster boy for anything positive IMO.

Griz:  Yes the burden is on the state, except--apparently--for weapons in NJ. 

 

I agree that he most likely broke the law.  Court could not prove it (well, probably they could have if it wasn't such a circus)

The fact is that this case was mishandled by the arresting officers and the prosecution and the court.

Whether he was guilty or not on the magazine, there is no way to know because the prosecution screwed up when they demonstrated it in court.  I agree with you, he probably violated the law on this count.  But that does not meet the legal burden required.

 

As far as moving, prior to this case I read the law and thought I was safe transporting between one residence and another (I interpreted moving to be in the Newtonian sense).  Reading  this case, it sounds like you actually need to be vacating one residence and moving into another (i.e. change of residence).

 

So for both HP and HG transport: If you want to transport between residences, you better stop by the range on the way.

 

Does anyone think that Aitken should have even been arrested?  If Aitken knew his rights to begin with and did not give into police pressure, intimidation, and false threats to get his "consent" for search, then this never would have happened.  Or if NJ had reasonable, understandable laws...

OK, he broke three different firearm laws in numerous counts. Make you happy that I am no longer saying the word "guilty?" Everybody here knows what the guy did.

 

I'm glad he got some relief, I wish he got full relief, but save the bullshit.

Unconstitutional laws?

 

Hear me out. What mag capacity should be appropriate? If it saves just 1 life?

Did he rob/ shoot/ kill anyone with these objects?

In commission of what crime? Being in between residence?

If you are caught with gun stuff in Jersey, remember the exceptions and defenses. "Officer, I am on my way directly home from robbing a liquor store. But I won't say which one until I speak with an attorney and check the newspaper."

 

 

Exactly

 

How programed are you?

Unless I'm missing something, the case law of not being able to move HP's from one residence to another seems totally absurd and arbitrary.  So in other words, if someone owns two houses, he or she would have to buy separate HP's for each house and never move them between, without stopping at a range on the way?  

 

What about moving them from home to a place of business and back?  Should one assume that's illegal as well?

Unless I'm missing something, the case law of not being able to move HP's from one residence to another seems totally absurd and arbitrary. So in other words, if someone owns two houses, he or she would have to buy separate HP's for each house and never move them between, without stopping at a range on the way?

It's not case law, it's the written law.

 

You also can't take handguns from one residence to another - unless moving. Another law he broke.

 

 

What about moving them from home to a place of business and back?  Should one assume that's illegal as well?

I wouldn't assume anything, read the law.

Griz:  Yes the burden is on the state, except--apparently--for weapons in NJ. 

 

I agree that he most likely broke the law.  Court could not prove it (well, probably they could have if it wasn't such a circus)

The fact is that this case was mishandled by the arresting officers and the prosecution and the court.

Whether he was guilty or not on the magazine, there is no way to know because the prosecution screwed up when they demonstrated it in court.  I agree with you, he probably violated the law on this count.  But that does not meet the legal burden required.

 

As far as moving, prior to this case I read the law and thought I was safe transporting between one residence and another (I interpreted moving to be in the Newtonian sense).  Reading  this case, it sounds like you actually need to be vacating one residence and moving into another (i.e. change of residence).

 

So for both HP and HG transport: If you want to transport between residences, you better stop by the range on the way.

 

Does anyone think that Aitken should have even been arrested?  If Aitken knew his rights to begin with and did not give into police pressure, intimidation, and false threats to get his "consent" for search, then this never would have happened.  Or if NJ had reasonable, understandable laws...

I'll start with saying I agree NJ gun laws suck and do nothing except screw the legal gun owner. However, even in NJ the prosecution must prove you don't fit into any exemption. There are exemptions for all kinds of laws.

 

Aitken, IMO, did a few things where he set himself up for trobule. I've listed them before but some are:

 

1. He said something to worry his mother (suicidal?) which caused her to call police. Aitken started it all with this. Who doesn't know what will worry their mother?

 

2. He returned to his mother's house knowing the police were there and knowing he had the guns in the car.

 

3. He talked with the police for some time and gave them consent to search.

 

4. After he was arrested he claimed he was moving and also said his room mate didn't want the guns in the house because he was having a party

The second excuse was corroborated with testimony.

 

Should he have been arrested? No. He shouldn't have been arrested if he were carrying the gun as long as he was not a prohibited person IMO. Opinions are not the law however. Aitken trying to put blame on NJSP for not telling him something is also a bs defense. If you're 25 and have consensual sex with a 17 year old see how far you claiming she didn't tell you she was under 18 will get you. Aitken is a whiner and has tried to project blame on everyone else. I haven't read his book but remember it's his story from his perspective. He's using the incident to make money on his stupidity. He insisted on going to trial. Nappen only did what his client insisted. I can't see much of a defense. We have to rely on what Aitken tells us but I guarantee Nappen tried to convince Aitken to cut a deal. If he didn't he's not much of a lawyer.

 

Aitken is no 2A hero in my book.

I'll start with saying I agree NJ gun laws suck and do nothing except screw the legal gun owner. However, even in NJ the prosecution must prove you don't fit into any exemption. There are exemptions for all kinds of laws.

 

Aitken, IMO, did a few things where he set himself up for trobule. I've listed them before but some are:

 

1. He said something to worry his mother (suicidal?) which caused her to call police. Aitken started it all with this. Who doesn't know what will worry their mother?

 

2. He returned to his mother's house knowing the police were there and knowing he had the guns in the car.

 

3. He talked with the police for some time and gave them consent to search.

 

4. After he was arrested he claimed he was moving and also said his room mate didn't want the guns in the house because he was having a party

The second excuse was corroborated with testimony.

 

Should he have been arrested? No. He shouldn't have been arrested if he were carrying the gun as long as he was not a prohibited person IMO. Opinions are not the law however. Aitken trying to put blame on NJSP for not telling him something is also a bs defense. If you're 25 and have consensual sex with a 17 year old see how far you claiming she didn't tell you she was under 18 will get you. Aitken is a whiner and has tried to project blame on everyone else. I haven't read his book but remember it's his story from his perspective. He's using the incident to make money on his stupidity. He insisted on going to trial. Nappen only did what his client insisted. I can't see much of a defense. We have to rely on what Aitken tells us but I guarantee Nappen tried to convince Aitken to cut a deal. If he didn't he's not much of a lawyer.

 

Aitken is no 2A hero in my book.

I do not disagree with anything you say.  One thing that Aitken did was to help in highlighting the absurdity of our laws, especially HP transport; and the difficulty that can make otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals because of an honest misunderstanding of the law.  I know the law is written by lawyers, but it should not be so obtuse that the average citizen cannot understand it without getting a legal opinion.

It's not case law, it's the written law.

 

You also can't take handguns from one residence to another - unless moving. Another law he broke.

I always understood this as moving in the Newtonian sense, the case law clarifies this.  But the written law is still lacking in clarification.  I would argue that anytime I box stuff up and move it from one rez to another, I am moving.  I am not sure if that would fly in court though.

I always understood this as moving in the Newtonian sense, the case law clarifies this. But the written law is still lacking in clarification. I would argue that anytime I box stuff up and move it from one rez to another, I am moving. I am not sure if that would fly in court though.

So if you own two houses in NJ, and you take some or all of your handguns from one to another, are you moving if

 

You day trip?

Spend the night?

A week?

3 months down the shore?

 

If you stop at the range on the way, are you black letter law good to go?

What we might consider reasonable is not what is written in NJ statutes. The one safe exception is to directly go to/from at a range. That might also include leaving/entering the state which seems ridiculous. I am sure some people ignore all this but the consequences can be very bad.

This thread shows just how retarded this state is. This is why people leave and go to free America never looking back.

I'll start with saying I agree NJ gun laws suck and do nothing except screw the legal gun owner. However, even in NJ the prosecution must prove you don't fit into any exemption. There are exemptions for all kinds of laws.

 

Aitken, IMO, did a few things where he set himself up for trobule. I've listed them before but some are:

 

1. He said something to worry his mother (suicidal?) which caused her to call police. Aitken started it all with this. Who doesn't know what will worry their mother?

 

2. He returned to his mother's house knowing the police were there and knowing he had the guns in the car.

 

3. He talked with the police for some time and gave them consent to search.

 

4. After he was arrested he claimed he was moving and also said his room mate didn't want the guns in the house because he was having a party

The second excuse was corroborated with testimony.

 

Should he have been arrested? No. He shouldn't have been arrested if he were carrying the gun as long as he was not a prohibited person IMO. Opinions are not the law however. Aitken trying to put blame on NJSP for not telling him something is also a bs defense. If you're 25 and have consensual sex with a 17 year old see how far you claiming she didn't tell you she was under 18 will get you. Aitken is a whiner and has tried to project blame on everyone else. I haven't read his book but remember it's his story from his perspective. He's using the incident to make money on his stupidity. He insisted on going to trial. Nappen only did what his client insisted. I can't see much of a defense. We have to rely on what Aitken tells us but I guarantee Nappen tried to convince Aitken to cut a deal. If he didn't he's not much of a lawyer.

 

Aitken is no 2A hero in my book.

 

You forgot a few:

 

5.  Didn't take the full pardon when it was offered

 

6.  Decided to fight it out in court

 

7.  Excessive whining and complaining about his lot in life -- to include public forums and book form -- when his dumb-assed decisions put him there in the first place

 

8.  Making the rest of us look foolish, too