Travel With An Unloaded And Locked Gun In Your Trunk? = GO TO JAIL!

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
I place blame squarely on the fathers shoulders for calling the police in the first place. Now he has to deal with an imprisoned son and the hard feelings that go along with it. he should have handled the situation himself. People should realize that no matter what they might say to the contrary, the police are not there to help you.

Respectfully

Reluctantpawn

I place the blame directly on the State for creating victimless crime.

I place secondary blame on the jury, for being complicit in the State's crime against humanity.

The jury should be put on trial for neglecting their civic duty and blindly following the State's orders.

It goes without saying that the prosecutor and judge in this case should be behind bars.

1. Why did the cops check his trunk and or personal belongings?
2. Why on earth did his mother call the police? The guy was 27 years old and was obviously free to do what he wanted with his life

In the end though. The man did possess illegal items and I found this section interesting.

"What little I can glean about the transportation issue leaves me puzzled, but a person with common sense would not be moving illegal products from one place to another by car," said Bryan Miller, executive director of CeaseFire NJ, an organization devoted to reducing gun violence.

"If Mr. Aitken did the research he said he did, he would not have hollow-point bullets and large-capacity magazines in the vehicle," Miller said. "They are illegal, period."

Whether you believe the laws are just or unfair is a moot point. Until they're changed you kinda still have to abide by them.

Just to be fair to the cops in this case:

The defendant (Brian Aitken) made suicidal comments to his mother
Aitken then left the house (possibly for his ex's and his canceled child visitation)
Mother called the cops
In addition to the guns (which were carried legally), they found hollow point bullets and large cap magazines which were illegal in NJ.

They probably arrested him at the time because they were treating the situation like a potential domestic violence, I mean if a family member calls the cops on you, and you have guns on you, expect to get arrested. I don't think this has anything to do with gun laws.

According to Brian Aitken, he was threatened with incarceration if he did not answer questions and consent to the search of his vehicle. He also told me that his Miranda Rights were read to him approximately 1 1/2 hours after his search and seizure. There seems to be violations of his Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights with his case. Taking into consideration, State and Federal laws which protect a citizens right to own and transport legally purchased firearms, I would assume it safe to say that this case appears to be politically motivated for reasons the law enforcement officials and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, John Brennan can only answer. John Brennan is the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who has chosen not to drop charges against Brian and to prosecute his case.

NJ guns laws might be more restrictive than other states, but this guy does not appear to be in violation of those laws - so the guns laws in this story are not the cause of his problems, it's more like an overzealous prosecutor.

I was also informed that, due to Brian not being able to afford a lengthy court battle, his attorney informed him that the prosecutor was offering Mr. Aitken only a 5 year sentence if he pleaded guilty. Brian has no desire to plead to a crime that he didn’t commit and declined the offer. I wouldn’t plead guilty for a crime I didn’t commit either!

So Mr. Prosecutor gets his plea offer rejected - I'm guessing Mr. Prosecutor has a greatly inflated opinion of himself and decided to "stick it to him" as an example.

Here is what he was charged with:

2C:39-3f - possession of hollow-nose bullets
2C:39-3j - possession of a large-capacity magazine
2C:39-5b - possession of a handgun without a permit to carry

3F and 3J is 4th degree felonies, max sentencing guideline is 9 months each, 5B is a 2nd degree felony, minimum is 3 years, maximum is 7 years (which he got). The issue became, if he was transporting these between his former residence in CO, to his new residence in NJ, why were they in his trunk on a visit to his mothers house, enroute to his ex wife's house? Especially when the visit was supposed to be for a scheduled child visitation?

As you can see, Brian's story doesn't exactly add up.

Next, what exactly happened to make his mother call the cops on him? Was he threatening his life? Her life? His ex-wife's life, or that of his child?

Again, this story is being presented in the media (particularly right-wing or pro-gun blogs) as a simple "2nd Amendment issue". It may not be so cut and dry.

On a positive note, the judge in the case has been removed from the bench. I really don't think any other judge would have given out such a ridiculous sentence. That only leaves an overzealous prosecutor who should learn to respect gun ownership laws.

Something a judge said about the case:

The state apparently says he had illegal unregistered guns and has to go to jail for 7 years. The judge apparently would not let the jury hear about an exemption that would cover him. The jury apparently knew enough about that exemption to beg to hear it. He refused, in an apparent outrageous abuse of power, basically sentencing a man to 7 years for legally possessed guns. -source

Originally posted by xEphon
1. Why did the cops check his trunk and or personal belongings?
2. Why on earth did his mother call the police? The guy was 27 years old and was obviously free to do what he wanted with his life

In the end though. The man did possess illegal items and I found this section interesting.

"What little I can glean about the transportation issue leaves me puzzled, but a person with common sense would not be moving illegal products from one place to another by car," said Bryan Miller, executive director of CeaseFire NJ, an organization devoted to reducing gun violence.

"If Mr. Aitken did the research he said he did, he would not have hollow-point bullets and large-capacity magazines in the vehicle," Miller said. "They are illegal, period."

Whether you believe the laws are just or unfair is a moot point. Until they're changed you kinda still have to abide by them.

Laws that do not protect property rights are not laws at all.

They are the will of tyrants.

It is not the responsibility of men to learn every petty law created by tyrants and to obey them.

Well, the state can do whatever they want..thats the concept of the republic...one state can be a socialist utopia, and the next state can be damn near anarchy while only following federal laws...

I think the biggest issue here is not the mother, nor any jury (which I didn't see if it even was a jury trial), but rather the judge for not considering the moving clause...if there is uncertainty, you must presume innocence. the moving was a questionable aspect here, which would therefore make the gun issue null and void...it appeared he was moving, people testified he was in the process of moving, therefore ya..the clause should have been relevant.

I am sort of suprised this isn't on appeal actually. get an appeals judge to look at the issue. They tend to be far more fair actually considering they don't even listen to stories...they simply go through the law and look at the technicalities. in this case, the technicalities are in his favor.

Either way, this judge has to go away.

On the slightly bright side, he won't actually be doing 7 years..he is a likely candidate for early parole and release...so a couple years of dealing and he will be back out..If he was in Florida or something, he would have to do 85% of his time, no compromise. but the next couple years is going to suck either way.
10 minutes in prison for something like this is too long.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Laws that do not protect property rights are not laws at all.

They are the will of tyrants.

It is not the responsibility of men to learn every petty law created by tyrants and to obey them.

Actually, in a democracic republic, the laws are the will of the people, proposed by the paranoid, and enforced by the tyrants.
waving a fist at the authority is not the answer in a democracy (D.R.), but rather educating the people that direct authority is key.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is not the responsibility of men to learn every petty law created by tyrants and to obey them.

Unfortunately, thats not the reality of law.

reply to post by SaturnFX


"Well, the state can do whatever they want."

Indeed.

They have more guns and are willing to use them.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

"Well, the state can do whatever they want."

Indeed.

They have more guns and are willing to use them.

Don't need a gun to achieve control...just paranoid protectionism in the name of freedom, the children, or a few other jingoistic phrases.

Icke said it best...we outsheep the sheep...sheep need a sheep herder to keep them in line, we tend to keep each other in line.

Again, this is not rage against the machine...because it is the voting majority that is the machine..the people with the suits and the person with a badge is simply a manifestation of the paranoia the collective individuals have in society.

The machine, the enemy, and the master is a mindset, not a badge

On the slightly bright side, he won't actually be doing 7 years..he is a likely candidate for early parole and release...so a couple years of dealing and he will be back out.

Yeah, just "deal"...did you look at this man? Did you read where his father said that he was involved in an "incident" right after being put in prison?

If this guy makes it inside for any length of time...what do you think is going to happen to him?
From what is said, he is a very intelligent person...he will either break and they will find him dead by either his own hand or the hands of his fellow inmates...or he will ride it out, find the strength deep inside to make it through this ordeal...

Don't count on his being the same person he was when he gets out.

This country is going to hell in a hand basket when a judge that lets a freaking cop off for fellatio with numerous calves (baby cows) than giving this guy sitting in prison for the next 7 years the benefit of the doubt that he truly was moving, just as he said.

Apparently a COP and his privates were more important than the life of a man that was a good citizen, to all appearances.

This man needs to be released!!! He is just another example of how justice is blind...but in this case...she up and died!!!

~holly

1. America was founded and under the laws of God.
2. And We the People are to obey Gods Laws.
3. The Constitution written by We The people.
4. We the People hired the Judges, Lawyers, Cops, Military.
To protect The Constitution for us the people.
In this order, Now days the Judges, Lawyers, Cops are above
We The People????

When the judge ask him how he pleas. He should plead "demurrer".
Now I was looking up the word demurrer. The Tyrants have even abolished
that right!
Unreal

Jersey is weird with gun laws, in NJ, you have to have a PERMIT to OWN an airsoft gun, a gun that shoots plastic BBs...

Whether you believe the laws are just or unfair is a moot point. Until they're changed you kinda still have to abide by them.

I understand abiding by the law, however, I gather the jury had a difficult time coming to a verdict . It would be in the best interest of all parties to not have to walk out of the jury room and feel badly about a verdict due to a judges instructions.

" Whether you believe the laws are just or unfair is a moot point "

It would behoove all citizens to understand that the application of ' unfair ' laws are not a moot point.

This is an excellent read and one can download free brochures to hand out to friends who have been called to jury duty

Especially significant in this particular case - Jury Protection for Second Amendment - a PDF file downloadable on the second link.

fija.org...

fija.org...

Understandably the PTB, Judges and Prosecutors HATE this information.

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.

On the slightly bright side, he won't actually be doing 7 years..he is a likely candidate for early parole and release...so a couple years of dealing and he will be back out.

Yeah, just "deal"...did you look at this man? Did you read where his father said that he was involved in an "incident" right after being put in prison?

If this guy makes it inside for any length of time...what do you think is going to happen to him?
From what is said, he is a very intelligent person...he will either break and they will find him dead by either his own hand or the hands of his fellow inmates...or he will ride it out, find the strength deep inside to make it through this ordeal...

Didn't say its fair...and ya, actually, that is the call of the day for him..to simply deal

Hopefully he isn't spending too much time complaining in prison actually..they hate that..nobody wants to be there and one thing that will make you a giant target in lock up is moaning about being there.
Best thing he can do is keep trying to get out, make the best of the time there, and learn the ropes asap...knowing the person he is while in prison is not ultimately what he is the second he steps back outside...you do what you got to do to survive, both mentally and physically.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Don't need a gun to achieve control...

I disagree.

Ultimately the power of government is derived from its use of coercive theft.

This theft requires a gun.

Without guns, such theft can not be accomplished.

If the government did not have weapons, it could not engage in theft. If it could not engage in theft, it could not fund itself. If it could not fund itself, it could not control the media.

First the government must achieve a monopoly of force, then once this is accomplished it can engage in violent theft, which then enables it to expand its power further.

If guns were taken away from government, government would cease to exist overnight.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Don't need a gun to achieve control...

I disagree.

Ultimately the power of government is derived from its use of coercive theft.

This theft requires a gun.

Disagree
Clever theft requires simple distraction

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Disagree
Clever theft requires simple distraction

It would have to be one hell of a distraction for me not to notice someone taking money out of my pocketbook.

reply to post by mnemeth1


For you maybe. For others it doesnt take much. For those who believe the whole of existence has spanned all of 50 years and the results of Dancing With the Stars keeps them from experiencing a solid nights sleep it doesnt take much at all to distract from the theft. And by the time you show them the pain theyve been accepting all their lives they hit the "but it's the law" wall. Good luck getting them past that point.

We live at the whim of these morons. By virtue of their stupidity and dependence they enslave us all to the "law."

The short bus runs the country.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

For you maybe. For others it doesnt take much. For those who believe the whole of existence has spanned all of 50 years and the results of Dancing With the Stars keeps them from experiencing a solid nights sleep it doesnt take much at all to distract from the theft. And by the time you show them the pain theyve been accepting all their lives they hit the "but it's the law" wall. Good luck getting them past that point.

We live at the whim of these morons. By virtue of their stupidity and dependence they enslave us all to the "law."

The short bus runs the country.

Yeah, but I would argue that American's would experience a sudden rejection of "the law" should the government be disarmed.

The questions is, does government theft require a gun?

To which my answer is, yes.

Without the gun, the theft would come to an abrupt end - law or no law.

Of course, the greatest theft of all is perpetrated by fiat currency and legal tender laws. Ending those by disarming government would stop most of the theft rather quickly.

Can anyone get an address of the jail he is at I think sending a few letters to him telling him that even if we can not do much about it we are thinking about you and think it's BS...

I'll write him a letter I think it's the least we could do.