Long story short - Don't take your guns to New Jersey.
Brian Aitkin was living in Colorado, and legally purchased 3 handguns while he was there. He decided to move to New Jersey to be closer to his son. Brian's mom started worrying about him and called 911. Police called Brian and asked him to return to his parents' house, which he did. When he got there, the police searched his vehicle and found the handguns. New Jersey's laws resulted in this man being prosecuted and later convicted of a felony even though the firearms were unloaded and locked in his trunk. He was in the process of moving his belongings, but the judge didn't allow that testimony.
So, now this guy gets to spend the next 7 years in a New Jersey State Prison. Thank, goodness we got this guy off the street!
And you wonder why I moved from N.J. to Va. as soon as I retired. I can see this being overturned on appeal without a problem and then the impending law suit against the idiot judge unless he still has immunity from the bench. The search seems to have been done witout a warrant unless the defendant ok'ed it. No way in hell should this guy have been arrested let alone tried and sentenced.
Bill
Worse travesties of justice have happened, but they generally involve someone getting murdered. This was just...wrong.
If it does get reversed on appeal, then it'll only have cost Mr. Aitkin a ton of money, all sorts of heartache for him and his family, and his belief in our "justice" system...or at least, that of New Jersey. Now I won't even drive through that state again. Can't risk it after this.
We need national reciprocity--the Thune Amendment--NOW.
CowboyT wrote:Worse travesties of justice have happened, but they generally involve someone getting murdered. This was just...wrong.
If it does get reversed on appeal, then it'll only have cost Mr. Aitkin a ton of money, all sorts of heartache for him and his family, and his belief in our "justice" system...or at least, that of New Jersey. Now I won't even drive through that state again. Can't risk it after this.
We need national reciprocity--the Thune Amendment--NOW.
I'm not sure national reciprocity is a good thing. There are certainly benefits, but once the federal government makes states accept each others permits, there will be much complaining from the north and west coast. I think it would lead to the federal government regulating the states permits or making one national permit. The middle ground would be a compromise of the worst sorts. While I would be able to carry in MD and other states which I can't do today, I expect the federal process to be far more intrusive and difficult.
I would rather have the states deal with it and simply refuse to live in states which don't respect my rights. I also avoid visiting those states as much as possible too.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gunderwood wrote:I'm not sure national reciprocity is a good thing. There are certainly benefits, but once the federal government makes states accept each others permits, there will be much complaining from the north and west coast. I think it would lead to the federal government regulating the states permits or making one national permit. The middle ground would be a compromise of the worst sorts. While I would be able to carry in MD and other states which I can't do today, I expect the federal process to be far more intrusive and difficult.
I would rather have the states deal with it and simply refuse to live in states which don't respect my rights. I also avoid visiting those states as much as possible too.
The federal government could start doing that anyway, with or without national reciprocity. Whether it's proper for them to do so or not appears to be irrelevant to the folks protected by Secret Service and Capitol Police and who control the Army. No, the Thune Amendment is not a perfect solution, but it would've kept this dude out of court and out of jail, and that would've been a good thing.
gunderwood wrote:I'm not sure national reciprocity is a good thing. There are certainly benefits, but once the federal government makes states accept each others permits, there will be much complaining from the north and west coast. I think it would lead to the federal government regulating the states permits or making one national permit. The middle ground would be a compromise of the worst sorts. While I would be able to carry in MD and other states which I can't do today, I expect the federal process to be far more intrusive and difficult.
I would rather have the states deal with it and simply refuse to live in states which don't respect my rights. I also avoid visiting those states as much as possible too.
The federal government could start doing that anyway, with or without national reciprocity. Whether it's proper for them to do so or not appears to be irrelevant to the folks protected by Secret Service and Capitol Police and who control the Army. No, the Thune Amendment is not a perfect solution, but it would've kept this dude out of court and out of jail, and that would've been a good thing.
I'm not sure about that. He appears to have been protected by federal transportation laws already, but the judge would not allow the law in his courtroom.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
What was the line used by a Jersey court a few years back? In matters relating to firearms, the citizen acts at his peril? Something like that. Gun ownership in New Jersey is illegal - with certain exceptions.
gunderwood wrote:I'm not sure about that. He appears to have been protected by federal transportation laws already, but the judge would not allow the law in his courtroom.
How so? He was transporting from his mother's house (NJ) to his domicile (NJ). No interstate travel. One could probably make the case that even when he was travelling from Colorado to NJ he wasn't protected under FOPA, since that requires that the firearms be legal at both the point of origin and destination in order to qualify for protection during transport.
Diomed wrote:What was the line used by a Jersey court a few years back? In matters relating to firearms, the citizen acts at his peril? Something like that. Gun ownership in New Jersey is illegal - with certain exceptions.
gunderwood wrote:I'm not sure about that. He appears to have been protected by federal transportation laws already, but the judge would not allow the law in his courtroom.
How so? He was transporting from his mother's house (NJ) to his domicile (NJ). No interstate travel. One could probably make the case that even when he was travelling from Colorado to NJ he wasn't protected under FOPA, since that requires that the firearms be legal at both the point of origin and destination in order to qualify for protection during transport.
I didn't search for other articles, but I don't recall that one saying where his parents lived or how that trip occurred. It does say he went to CO in December 08 and his troubles occurred January 09. Given the time of year, making a trip down to CO which starts in December and ends in January is entirely plausible, but the article doesn't say. The gun is legal in NJ to keep in his residence (registration is "voluntary" for firearms purchased outside of the state: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/forms.html). If he stayed with his parents while the apartment was being prepared he should have been covered under NJ law and if it was the same trip in which he went to CO, then he should have been covered under FOPA. The article is too vague to determine exactly what happened.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
He should have been covered under 2:c law in the state of New Jersey as long as the weapons were in a locked trunk and unloaded.
My daughter is in for the Thankisgiving Holiday from Jersey and I checked with her and she stated that the 2:C Law that was enacted in Sept. of 1978 has not changed on this.
Bill
gunderwood wrote:I didn't search for other articles, but I don't recall that one saying where his parents lived or how that trip occurred. It does say he went to CO in December 08 and his troubles occurred January 09. Given the time of year, making a trip down to CO which starts in December and ends in January is entirely plausible, but the article doesn't say. The gun is legal in NJ to keep in his residence (registration is "voluntary" for firearms purchased outside of the state: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/forms.html). If he stayed with his parents while the apartment was being prepared he should have been covered under NJ law and if it was the same trip in which he went to CO, then he should have been covered under FOPA. The article is too vague to determine exactly what happened.
The article I had read indicated that he had an apartment and was possibly moving his belongings from his mother's place to his own; the trip back from Colorado was in the past. One of the defenses that he tried to present was that his roommate was having a party and he had removed the firearms from the residence to prevent any drunks from doing something stupid.
This illustrates the problems inherent upon relying on the media, that two accounts of the same event that are essentially opposites of each other get published is exasperating.
gunderwood wrote:I didn't search for other articles, but I don't recall that one saying where his parents lived or how that trip occurred. It does say he went to CO in December 08 and his troubles occurred January 09. Given the time of year, making a trip down to CO which starts in December and ends in January is entirely plausible, but the article doesn't say. The gun is legal in NJ to keep in his residence (registration is "voluntary" for firearms purchased outside of the state: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/forms.html). If he stayed with his parents while the apartment was being prepared he should have been covered under NJ law and if it was the same trip in which he went to CO, then he should have been covered under FOPA. The article is too vague to determine exactly what happened.
The article I had read indicated that he had an apartment and was possibly moving his belongings from his mother's place to his own; the trip back from Colorado was in the past. One of the defenses that he tried to present was that his roommate was having a party and he had removed the firearms from the residence to prevent any drunks from doing something stupid.
This illustrates the problems inherent upon relying on the media, that two accounts of the same event that are essentially opposites of each other get published is exasperating.
Thanks for clearing that up.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
