I'm glad I don't live in NJ

[Perchoutofwater]

New Jersey man serving seven years for guns he owned legally.

 

This seems like total crap to me. If I lived in NJ I could probably get arrested at least once a week for the same thing. Hopefully Christie will make this right, because it sounds like both the prosecutor and the judge are feminine hygiene products.

[keggerz]

New Jersey man serving seven years for guns he owned legally.

 

This seems like total crap to me. If I lived in NJ I could probably get arrested at least once a week for the same thing. Hopefully Christie will make this right, because it sounds like both the prosecutor and the judge are feminine hygiene products.

Does owning a gun legally absolve one of all other rules/regs/laws surrounding guns?

If you own a gun legally can you then just shoot someone and not worry about other laws?

If you own a gun legally can you just walk around with it in plain sight if you don't have a permit to do so?

I think you get the picture.

 

 

how did you feel about plax getting pinched for not having the NY permit or whatever?

 

I will give you that the judge sounds like a worry wart bag and dumb ass but this guy may have PURCHASED the guns legally he didn't do what he needed to do when he relocated to NJ.

 

In the Garden State, Aitken was required to have a purchaser's permit from New Jersey to own the guns and a carry permit to have them in his car.

 

He also was charged with having "large capacity" magazines and hollow-point bullets, which one state gun-control advocate found troubling.

 

..."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."

 

and this statement is just absolutely yeah perps don't get busted due to a normal traffic stop and then the cops find drugs etc in their cars:

 

"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.

 

I guess him using the word common sense makes his statement a bit more understandable

 

 

Do I think the guy deserves to be in jail for 7 years? No....do I think he broke the law? Yes

Edited November 30, 2010 by keggerz

[Hugh 0ne]

 

Nice knee-jerk reaction. Why do you hate the US Constitution?

[keggerz]

Perch has been typing for a while now...must be hard as hell to type with a gun in each hand

[Perchoutofwater]

Does owning a gun legally absolve one of all other rules/regs/laws surrounding guns?

If you own a gun legally can you then just shoot someone and not worry about other laws?

If you own a gun legally can you just walk around with it in plain sight if you don't have a permit to do so?

I think you get the picture.

 

 

how did you feel about plax getting pinched for not having the NY permit or whatever?

 

I will give you that the judge sounds like a worry wart bag and dumb ass but this guy may have PURCHASED the guns legally he didn't do what he needed to do when he relocated to NJ.

 

In the Garden State, Aitken was required to have a purchaser's permit from New Jersey to own the guns and a carry permit to have them in his car.

 

He also was charged with having "large capacity" magazines and hollow-point bullets, which one state gun-control advocate found troubling.

 

..."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."

 

and this statement is just absolutely yeah perps don't get busted due to a normal traffic stop and then the cops find drugs etc in their cars:

 

"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.

 

I guess him using the word common sense makes his statement a bit more understandable

 

 

Do I think the guy deserves to be in jail for 7 years? No....do I think he broke the law? Yes

 

To your multiple questions at the beginning of your post are just stupid, and you know it. What we have here is a case where the state is being over restrictive regarding citizens gun rights. And as a matter of fact there are several states where you can in fact carry a gun on your hip in plain sight without a permit. There is actually a bill that will be introduced in the Texas legislature during the next session that will allow just that. Additionally in Texas while I am required a permit to carry concealed off my property, but on my person, I am not required a permit to carry a loaded gun in my car as long as it is out of plain sight.

 

He may have broken the law based on what one gun-control advocate stated regarding hollow point bullets and high capacity magazines, but I would like to see it reported as such from the court or the prosecutor rather than from a gun-control advocate. As a matter of fact this indicates that based on him moving he was allowed to carry hollow point bullets contrary to what the gun control advocate said. Based on this I'd also question the gun-control advocates definition of a high capacity magazine. Obviously the article does not state that size of the magazine, so we do not know if it will hold more than 15 rounds which is allowed by NJ law. It is the charge of illegal transporting that got him in jail for 7 years. He legally owned the gun. Yes if he had purchased the gun in NJ he would have had to have had a purchaser's permit, but what if you already own the guns? Do you need a purchasers permit if your father dies and leaves you his gun collection? It is my understanding the main charge with the 7 year jail sentence was transporting them, which any reasonable person could see he was doing within the law. They were unloaded and locked, and in the trunk of his car.

 

ETA: I've since looked at 5 more articles regarding this story, and none of the others mention the magazine size, which leads me to believe the gun-control advocate didn't know what he was talking about.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bushwacked]

What we have here is a case where the state is being over restrictive regarding citizens gun rights.

 

Perch is all for state rights, until he isn't anymore.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch is all for state rights, until he isn't anymore.

 

I am for states rights, except where they violate The Constitution and it's amendments. Having said that it does not look like the guy actually broke any state laws, but that a bad judge and a bad prosecutor failed to allow the jury to know about the exemption. Thanks for playing though.

[keggerz]

To your multiple questions at the beginning of your post are just stupid, and you know it. What we have here is a case where the state is being over restrictive regarding citizens gun rights. And as a matter of fact there are several states where you can in fact carry a gun on your hip in plain sight without a permit. There is actually a bill that will be introduced in the Texas legislature during the next session that will allow just that. Additionally in Texas while I am required a permit to carry concealed off my property, but on my person, I am not required a permit to carry a loaded gun in my car as long as it is out of plain sight.

 

He may have broken the law based on what one gun-control advocate stated regarding hollow point bullets and high capacity magazines, but I would like to see it reported as such from the court or the prosecutor rather than from a gun-control advocate. As a matter of fact this indicates that based on him moving he was allowed to carry hollow point bullets contrary to what the gun control advocate said. Based on this I'd also question the gun-control advocates definition of a high capacity magazine. Obviously the article does not state that size of the magazine, so we do not know if it will hold more than 15 rounds which is allowed by NJ law. It is the charge of illegal transporting that got him in jail for 7 years. He legally owned the gun. Yes if he had purchased the gun in NJ he would have had to have had a purchaser's permit, but what if you already own the guns? Do you need a purchasers permit if your father dies and leaves you his gun collection? It is my understanding the main charge with the 7 year jail sentence was transporting them, which any reasonable person could see he was doing within the law. They were unloaded and locked, and in the trunk of his car.

 

ETA: I've since looked at 5 more articles regarding this story, and none of the others mention the magazine size, which leads me to believe the gun-control advocate didn't know what he was talking about.

 

they were meant to be stupid for a reason...because it is stupid to claim a guy is in jail for having legally owned guns...that isn't why he is in jail...and it doesn't matter how restrictive the laws are ...they ARE the current laws....you say you can't carry that way in Texas yet(my example)...I would bet some see that as restrictive...should they be able to carry that way and say well they are going to be changing it or it's to restrictive...

 

and he wasn't transporting them properly ...he still would have needed a permit for it

 

and I don't care if you like or dislike the law...it is the law...you don't like it you do what you can to change it....but you don't break it and then cry this or that. JMHO

[Perchoutofwater]

they were meant to be stupid for a reason...because it is stupid to claim a guy is in jail for having legally owned guns...that isn't why he is in jail...and it doesn't matter how restrictive the laws are ...they ARE the current laws....you say you can't carry that way in Texas yet(my example)...I would bet some see that as restrictive...should they be able to carry that way and say well they are going to be changing it or it's to restrictive...

 

and he wasn't transporting them properly ...he still would have needed a permit for it

 

and I don't care if you like or dislike the law...it is the law...you don't like it you do what you can to change it....but you don't break it and then cry this or that. JMHO

 

My point is, I'm not sure that he actually did break the law. Yes you need a permit to purchase a gun, but what if you already have one? NJ requires a purchaser's permit, but he was not purchasing a gun. It appears as though the prosecutor and the judge failed to allow the jury to know about the moving exemption, which based on what I've read puts him within the limits of the law.

 

My response to open carry was just a rebuttal to your stupid responses showing that open carry is allowed in many states (11) without permit, and four more including Texas will be voting on it in the next legislature. In addition to that 14 allow open carry with a permit. I was just pointing out that in many cases your stupid remark was even dumber than you thought it was as it is allowed, as half the country currently allows open carry off of private property, while only 7 state completely restrict open carry.

[bushwacked]

I am for states rights, except where I think they violate The Constitution and it's amendments. But I don't know about the constitution as much as I think I do and it really comes down to my personal preference on the "way things outta be,"

 

Edit for accuracy.

[Hugh 0ne]

Having said that it does not look like the guy actually broke any state laws

 

Wrong, but thanks for playing. New Jersey gun laws suck, as do the ones in New York, but he was driving around with guns in his car. Can't do that unless you meet the very limited exemptions available. I own a gun in New York. I know what the laws are. They suck, but I guess I have 2 options: move, or follow the laws.

 

Again, you never answered my original question. Why do you hate the US Constitution?

[keggerz]

My point is, I'm not sure that he actually did break the law.

So you don't know the law but post a thread about how you wouldn't want to live in NJ because you can go to jail for owning a gun legally.

 

Nuff' said, gotcha

[keggerz]

My point is, I'm not sure that he actually did break the law. Yes you need a permit to purchase a gun, but what if you already have one? NJ requires a purchaser's permit, but he was not purchasing a gun. It appears as though the prosecutor and the judge failed to allow the jury to know about the moving exemption, which based on what I've read puts him within the limits of the law.

 

My response to open carry was just a rebuttal to your stupid responses showing that open carry is allowed in many states (11) without permit, and four more including Texas will be voting on it in the next legislature. In addition to that 14 allow open carry with a permit. I was just pointing out that in many cases your stupid remark was even dumber than you thought it was as it is allowed, as half the country currently allows open carry off of private property, while only 7 state completely restrict open carry.

So should people be able to open carry in those 7 states? Of course not...just like this guy needed to follow the laws of NJ and not what you perceive the laws should be

[Hugh 0ne]

My point is, I'm not sure that he actually did break the law.

 

This is where your wrong, game over.

 

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.

 

If you don't meet those exemptions, even with a legally own gun, you're breaking the law. Again, do the laws suck, absolutely, but that has nothing to do with your arguments.

[Perchoutofwater]

Wrong, but thanks for playing. New Jersey gun laws suck, as do the ones in New York, but he was driving around with guns in his car. Can't do that unless you meet the very limited exemptions available. I own a gun in New York. I know what the laws are. They suck, but I guess I have 2 options: move, or follow the laws.

 

Again, you never answered my original question. Why do you hate the US Constitution?

 

It appears as though he met the moving exemption, based on the law I linked. Where do you get that I hate the Constitution?

[Hugh 0ne]

So you don't know the law but post a thread about how you wouldn't want to live in NJ because you can go to jail for owning a gun legally.

 

Nuff' said, gotcha

 

Keg, I'll let you finish this one, I think we're on the same page and may be posting similar stuff, besides, I have some work to do.

[Perchoutofwater]

So you don't know the law but post a thread about how you wouldn't want to live in NJ because you can go to jail for owning a gun legally.

 

Nuff' said, gotcha

 

Actually when I originally posted it, I did not know the law, and based my comment on that. After looking more into the case, and reading the link I posted to the NJ law, I'd still hate to live in NJ because it is too restrictive, but it appears as though the guy acted within the law.

[Perchoutofwater]

This is where your wrong, game over.

 

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.

 

If you don't meet those exemptions, even with a legally own gun, you're breaking the law. Again, do the laws suck, absolutely, but that has nothing to do with your arguments.

 

Did you miss the part where he was moving, and had boxes of dishes and clothes in his car? In another of the articles I read it took the police well over an hour to find the guns because they had to unpack his trunk which was full of his stuff.

[untateve]

Did you miss the part where he was moving, and had boxes of dishes and clothes in his car? In another of the articles I read it took the police well over an hour to find the guns because they had to unpack his trunk which was full of his stuff.

 

Wouldn't it have been advisable for his defense attorney to have brought this up during the trial?

[Hugh 0ne]

It appears as though he met the moving exemption, based on the law I linked.

 

Really? How? Was he in the process of moving? No, he was driving around with guns in his trunk in New Jersey.

 

Where do you get that I hate the Constitution?

 

Well, you don't like the laws, and call them total crap, and are supporting someone who broke those laws.

[Perchoutofwater]

Wouldn't it have been advisable for his defense attorney to have brought this up during the trial?

 

Did you read the article where the defense attorney did bring it up, and the jury asked the judge for the statute and the judge did not allow the jury the statute?

[Hugh 0ne]

Did you miss the part where he was moving, and had boxes of dishes and clothes in his car? In another of the articles I read it took the police well over an hour to find the guns because they had to unpack his trunk which was full of his stuff.

 

This is where you are wrong. If he was driving from location #1 of the move to location # 2 of the move, he would meet the exemption. He wasn't. I know it sounds f*cked up, but that's the law. If he got to location #2, took a dump, forgot to unload the car, went to McDonalds and got pulled over, guess what, he wouldn't meet the exemption.

 

The laws suck, I agree with you there, but he broke the law, plain and simple.

[untateve]

Did you read the article where the defense attorney did bring it up, and the jury asked the judge for the statute and the judge did not allow the jury the statute?

 

Well then, it certainly looks like he'll have a successful appeal and a new trial.

[keggerz]

Did you read the article where the defense attorney did bring it up, and the jury asked the judge for the statute and the judge did not allow the jury the statute?

It wasn't brought up in the trial...they tried to bring it up at closing...probably and note I say probably because I don't know how this works legally, they took a calculated risk that the judge would allow this in via the closing argument...if that was the case then they got bit...not sure why they didn't bring it up during trial but my gut is that they knew it had holes in it....

 

Aitken and his legal team tried during closing arguments to raise an issue related to Aitken's moving that wasn't presented during the trial, but Morley wouldn't consider it. Aitken remains in prison pending his appeal.

[SheikYerbuti]

We're glad you don't live here too.