New Jersey gun laws - Guilty till proven you qualify for an exemption

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Yunus, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Brian Aitken's Mistake - Reason Magazine

    Should we write some letters to Gov Christie on behalf of this guy? He thought he was following the rules and even if he was not moving as the judge suggests he was still attempting to prevent firearms from being in a situation with people at a party who were drinking.
     
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes, we should.
     

  3. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    I agree, a noble effort for the members of the FTF.

    Brian Aitken's Mistake - Reason Magazine
    _______________________________________________
    Office of the Governor
    PO Box 001
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    609-292-6000

    OR Through the web site @

    Office of the Governor | Contact Us
    ________________________________________________________________________
     
  4. buckhuntr

    buckhuntr Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    3,853
    156
    63
    Wow! I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't it seem that by the judge refusing to allow evidence to be presented to the jury, that there are sufficient grounds for a successful appeal, all the way to the SCOTUS? That poor guy. :confused::mad:
    I hate New Jersey for other reasons, but this one takes the cake.
     
  5. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    My letter to Gov Christie.

    Governor Christie,

    Although I live on the opposite coast, I am writing today to respectfully request you look at the case of 27 year old Brian Aitken. This young man is a media consultant and business man. He has no prior arrests and is for all proposes the victim of judicial prejudice.

    It is obvious Mr. Aitken was in the process of changing residences at the time of his arrest. The court chose to ignore evidence which validated that exemption claim.

    I trust that, following examination of the case, you will agree that Brian has been victimized. I am requesting that you find a way to grant his petition for a reprieve.

    Sincerely,
     
  6. buckhuntr

    buckhuntr Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    3,853
    156
    63
    I went the route of the Governor's Website link (and was a bit more wordy):

    Governor Cristie, I am writing in support of the petition for clemency you have received or will receive from New Jersey citizen Brian Aitken, who is incarcerated in your State after a conviction of felony possession of a handgun. As I understand the basis of the conviction, justice and due process were denied Mr. Aitken, in that Burlington County Superior Court Judge James Morley (who presided over the case) explicitly prevented testimony from being presented to the jury that likely would have given the jury sufficient cause to return a "not guilty" verdict.
    I am not an attorney, nor am I a NJ resident, but I am a gun owner who has compassion for someone like me who is a responsible gun owner, who researched NJ and Federal laws prior to moving back to NJ, and in attempting to adhere to those laws in regards to his legally-purchased handguns, has suffered a travesty of justice the magnitude of which should make any free American's blood run cold!
    Governor Christie, you hold the power to see that Mr. Aitken at last can rest in his own bed, freed from a wrongful conviction, with his liberty restored, and justice truly served. And please see to it that Brian's guns are returned to him - he deserves that much and more.

    Sincerely,
     
  7. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Governor Christie,
    I understand you are very busy so I will keep this brief. You are known across this country as someone who is a very to the point person willing to do what is right and necessary even when not popular. I hope that you will take a closer look at the case of Brian Aitken who has been convicted of illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey. If you look at the case you will find that he is a good person who had no intention of violating the law. He was convicted on a technicality that only existed because all the evidence was not allowed to be presented. The idea of gun control is to make the streets safer and in this case it has done the opposite. Legal gun owners will be less willing to dial 911 for fear of facing circumstances similar to Mr. Aitken.

    I implore you to step in and take action to free Mr. Aitken. The justice system has failed and I ask you to once again do what is right even if not popular with gun control lobbyists and free this man as he is not a threat to society and the streets are no safer with him behind bars.

    Sincerely,
     
  8. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    Thank you fellas, copied your messages and sent one in.
     
  9. Swampbilly

    Swampbilly New Member

    96
    0
    0
    This is how bad judges, effect their own bias in swaying court decisions. This punk in a black robe obviously is anti-gun and forced the court to ignore testimony that would have perhaps exhonerated the guy.


    Regards,


    Swampbilly
     
  10. Bignews

    Bignews New Member

    22
    0
    0
    This situation probably happens more than we think, and this is the sort of thing that makes me second guess the notion that "justice will always prevail." as much as like like living in nj, i might be "safer" elsewhere
     
  11. Swampbilly

    Swampbilly New Member

    96
    0
    0
    I know people often must do what they need to do, and live where they can earn a living...but I don't know how an avid firearm owner and shooter can live in the New Jersey area. Especially, if you are also a staunch believer in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and citizen's rights and liberties.

    If I lived there, I think I woud be continually striving to get the heck out of there.


    Regards,

    SwampBilly
     
  12. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it's looks to me that the judge's behavior is just screaming out for an appeal.
     
  13. Ruger44

    Ruger44 New Member

    97
    0
    0
    You know, I heard about this case on the NRA News with Cam Edwards on Sirius radio a few weeks back. What really makes me mad is that, after sitting through the trial and hearing evidence presented by the defense attorney that an exemption exists and even though the judge's instructions to the jury did not mention the exemption, that there wasn't even one juror that who would vote no on conviction. That is the sad part about the whole thing. If I had been in the jury room, I would have asked for the statute and if the Judge would have refused my request, I would have voted not to convict because I was not given all the information to be able to make a competant decision.
     
  14. schwefel

    schwefel New Member

    38
    0
    0
    You and me both. Sadly, the prosecuter would have rejected both of us serving on said jury.


    Jury nulification is something very few of the citizenry are familiar with. If the prosecutor/petitioners lawyer get even a hint that you may know what it is, you will be rejected.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010
  15. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    4
    0
    there in lies the problem. We need to not move out or away from but to the states like NY, NJ, CA. The more gun owners that live there the quicker we can change the laws. I have always proposed that we move everyone we can into the states with bad gun laws and then we could turn them over and get rid of them. Think about it we could over power the state and elect gun friendly people who would fight to get rid of these stupid gun laws.
     
  16. Swampbilly

    Swampbilly New Member

    96
    0
    0

    I can see your point, and it deserves merit. The bad thing are the "pioneers" who suffer under their police and nanny-state mentalities until things are changed.

    Regards,

    Swampbilly
     
  17. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    From my understanding, this entire thing was caused by the judge being a total *** and not allowing any testimony from the arresting officer that there was lots of proof that Aitken was moving (such as, y'know, all the clothes and other junk in his car, his mother and himself mentioning it, and, oh, wow, look at all those receipts for packing materials, and the fact that his lease started that exact same month, etc).

    My understanding is that the judge is being disrobed (is that the proper term for having a judge removed) and that the case was either going to appeals or being thrown out entirely.
     
  18. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0

    Except, how do you know that you don't know all the information you need to make a conviction.

    You have a point. Even in the article, it mentions that the jury asked if there were ways to not convict Aitken, but the judge refused to tell them/allow them to be told.

    When you serve on a jury, you're told "If you do X, Y, and Z, you're guilty of crime X. Your job is to determine if, beyond a reasonable doubt, person A did X, Y, and Z, and, by extension, is guilty of this crime. If you believe he did X, Y, and Z, you must vote guilty."

    The jurors weren't comfortable with the decision, because they didn't know that the law actually was "unless you're doing K, in which case it doesn't matter that you were doing X, Y, Z." They were told that there were no exemptions to the gun law, and anyone in violations of the gun law were guilty.

    Imagine, if you will, that you're a juror who has no knowledge of the fact that you can kill a person in self defense and it doesn't count as murder. You're told that if a person A kills person B, he is guilty of murder, and are presented with OVERWHELMING evidence that person A did, in fact, kill person B. If you were never told (or even aware) that the law has an exemption of "unless that person tries to kill you first, in which case it is okay to kill him back faster," the oath you took as a juror means that you'd have to find him guilty.

    The problem was entirely the judge and his .... complete disregard for the law. A judge is supposed to present the law to the FULL extent for the jurors. I could even forgive if he didn't tell them off the bat. But REFUSING to let them know about the exemption was total B.S.
     
  19. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    I was unaware the judge was being removed because of this case. Do you have a link to a news site or anything?

    I never heard anything even a canned response from the governor's office after I sent my email.
     
  20. corrinavatan

    corrinavatan New Member

    123
    0
    0
    From the article

    "In a telephone interview, Morley (who lost his job when Gov. Christie declined to reappoint him in June because of rulings in unrelated cases) says he didn't allow the jury to consider the moving "

    I might have mis-remembered it. I was under the impression that he was fired directly because of this case, but the article says that it was due to him having issues with other cases. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the idiot judge had similar rulings where he decided that "evidence wasn't relevant."

    Honestly, just from this article, this guy should get a pardon. That is total bull.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010