My Life as a Convicted Gun Offender Who Did Nothing Wrong

[Jaguar]

Come on guys, you know if you don't vote for Christie you are voting for Hillary.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Come on guys, you know if you don't vote for Christie you are voting for Hillary.

I vote for the least worst candidate, regardless of party, unless the Pizza Party is running a candidate of course. We'll see who actually runs.

[mamabearCali]

Better a vote for Hillary than a vote for the GOP to own progressivism. Nope....they got their last guilt vote out of me for Romney. If they want my vote they have to put up a candidate that is actually different than the democrat one.

To keep this second amendment based....why should I vote for a man who is just fine with gun control. It is like voting for a larger version of the same thing, but with a cuddly velour on top. Nope I prefer tyranny I can see straight up for what it is. It is like a rattlesnake in your yard...you want to know where it is at all times. With Hillary I would at least know for certain and be paying attention to what she was doing. With Christie, I would be almost certain he would try to backdoor something and we would not know it till it was over with. Then he would be all shocked and oh so sorry...but the laws the law.

[Abraham]

RoadRunnerTR21,

You sir deserve a MEGA attaboy!

ATTABOY!!

[texanjoker]

That article doesn't say much of anything.

[rbwhatever1]

Ha! Tells me (2) Things.
1 - Never take a Legally owned empty handgun that's locked up in the trunk into New Jersey.
2 - Take some friends with me if I ever need to cross the Delaware headed into Trenton...

[C-dub]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/ ... tken-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure we talked about this back when it happened and then again when Christie commuted his sentence. I posted the first story about this on my FB page this morning an almost immediately my liberal friends said he should have just gotten the permit. They didn't understand. Anyway, I kept letting them take more and more rope until I eventually posted this link. Now, they need to get rid of that ridiculous hollow point restriction.

[JSThane]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

K, so when do we throw the judge and prosecutor in jail?

When we elect someone as POTUS who will actually enforce the law, instead of making it up as he goes along.

[C-dub]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

K, so when do we throw the judge and prosecutor in jail?

When we elect someone as POTUS who will actually enforce the law, instead of making it up as he goes along.

Whoa! NJ has an MPA? Did I miss that? Unless I did miss something, the MPA is a Texas law, not a federal one.

[Jumping Frog]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

Way off the mark here. First, I suspect you are thinking of FOPA (federal), not MPA (Texas). However, neither FOPA or MPA apply. This was purely an internal NJ screwup under a screwed up NJ set of laws.

[JSThane]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

Way off the mark here. First, I suspect you are thinking of FOPA (federal), not MPA (Texas). However, neither FOPA or MPA apply. This was purely an internal NJ screwup under a screwed up NJ set of laws.

Much as I wish otherwise, I am often wrong, and frequently on the internet. Thank you. That being said, I -thought- there was something similar that applied, and IIRC, yes, it was something that should have been covered under state law, not federal, my mistake. IE, NJ law had a specific exemption for people in-transit or traveling, if the firearms were unloaded and in a locked container; they decided that didn't apply for some reason, and charged him anyway, despite it being a textbook case of an exemption as the law was written.

[EEllis]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

Way off the mark here. First, I suspect you are thinking of FOPA (federal), not MPA (Texas). However, neither FOPA or MPA apply. This was purely an internal NJ screwup under a screwed up NJ set of laws.

Much as I wish otherwise, I am often wrong, and frequently on the internet. Thank you. That being said, I -thought- there was something similar that applied, and IIRC, yes, it was something that should have been covered under state law, not federal, my mistake. IE, NJ law had a specific exemption for people in-transit or traveling, if the firearms were unloaded and in a locked container; they decided that didn't apply for some reason, and charged him anyway, despite it being a textbook case of an exemption as the law was written.

They problem was it didn't "fit" the law. There is an exemption for moving. In theory the defendant felt like he was moving from I believe his mothers house to his own place but this was an ongoing thing over many days thus no longer fitting the true intent of the law. There was also testimony given that the guns had already been moved and that they were removed from the house and put back in the car so they wouldn't be in the house for a party that was being thrown. Now I think the law is absurd and it makes me never want to get close to NJ but what was this guy thinking? This is NJ. It may be wrong but you got to know what you are getting into or you are to stupid to safely own firearms.

[chasfm11]

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, he was covered under MPA, which trumped NJ law. NJ decided to ignore this, however, and prosecute him anyway.

Way off the mark here. First, I suspect you are thinking of FOPA (federal), not MPA (Texas). However, neither FOPA or MPA apply. This was purely an internal NJ screwup under a screwed up NJ set of laws.

Much as I wish otherwise, I am often wrong, and frequently on the internet. Thank you. That being said, I -thought- there was something similar that applied, and IIRC, yes, it was something that should have been covered under state law, not federal, my mistake. IE, NJ law had a specific exemption for people in-transit or traveling, if the firearms were unloaded and in a locked container; they decided that didn't apply for some reason, and charged him anyway, despite it being a textbook case of an exemption as the law was written.

There is really a lot more to this case than traveling

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/0 ... ons_f.html

The case began in 2009, when Aitken muttered to his mother that life wasn’t living and left her home in Mount Laurel. She called police, who found two handguns in the trunk of his car.

The search of his car was done because of his mother's phone call. While I don't agree with the gun laws in NJ (I had to live there 3 years), the fact is that the police never would have searched his car without his being turned in, purportedly as a suicide risk. From there, who knows how it is going to go. For me, it was a little like the thread about the guy from the UK getting convicted of owning a zip gun when the original call to the police was for DV because he took a whack at his wife with a small sledge hammer and she turned him in for having the gun. While all of us do stupid things, being on the fringe with guns AND putting yourself in a position where the police are called isn't the best course of action. NJ LE, like the LE in the UK, is likely to seize every opportunity to press charges against anyone who isn't a career thug.

[JSThane]

It is the same case I recall, then. Dude had his guns buried under his bags in the trunk, and his mother called him in as dangerous, etc. Cops had to go digging for the guns; they weren't evident in the car. He claimed the traveling exemption because he was moving house. For me, if I'm making several trips with stuff, I'd consider I was still moving, and therefore still traveling; the fact that I'm going back and forth over the same route is irrelevant. I hadn't heard anything about a party before, though, but keeping the guns in the trunk does make sense. Not only does it keep them out of the view of any guests, but it also seems like an attempt to comply with any "safe storage" laws up there, keeping them locked up (albeit in a trunk).

It's still a travesty of law, miscarriage of justice, and a violation of the man's civil and Constitutional rights.