View Single Post
Old August 8, 2014, 01:04 PM   #14
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Intent to break the law isn't a condition of being in violation of this law. However, she apparently knowingly did intend to travel with her gun for protection and she intended to take it into NJ and did so. So "intent" appears satisfied and is not being ignored, at least in regard to Shaneen Allen getting due process.
Intending to travel with her gun to NJ is different from intent to break NJ's gun law. Intent means that she was aware of the law and ignored it. She showed the officer her PA permit and told him that she had the gun. She wasn't trying to hide anything, thinking that it was ok to carry there.
You can claim that she should have researched the law but you can't claim that she intentionally broke the law.
This is a perfect example of the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no defense." Ignorance of the facts, on the other hand, can be a defense.

For example, if unbeknownst to her, someone put a handgun in her trunk. She drove into NJ with that handgun, but did not know she was doing so. If that handgun is discovered in he "possession" and she is charged, she may have a defense that she didn't know she was breaking the law. That is, she didn't know that there was a handgun in her trunk. Another example could be that she didn't know she had crossed into NJ.

But if you knowingly do what you do, even if you don't know that it is against the law, you lack of knowledge of the law (or mistaken belief that the law is different than it is) is no defense. As noted above, intent is not an element of the law she is charged with breaking.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03582 seconds with 8 queries