|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 24, 2010, 05:00 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
I'm more inclined to read the article than watch the video, but did anyone else try to watch the video of Judge Napolitano linked in the topic post?
"This video is no longer available because the account was terminated due to repeated copyright violations." Hmmm. |
October 25, 2010, 08:23 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Why the hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting that Judge Napolitano's opinion in this matter is somehow more or less valid simply because someone posted a video on Youtube without getting the copyright owner's (more than likely Fox News) permission? How does that reflect on anything he might have said?
|
October 26, 2010, 04:52 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
I'm not so much suspicious of the Judge or what he said as I am of the person who posted it without authorization. Another example in my view of the fact that there is no such thing as a complete story here yet. I'm not ready to call Brian Aitken a whining criminal like WildAlaska has yet, but I'm not completely buying this story since it's pretty obvious we only have part of his side, almost none of the other side.
|
October 26, 2010, 02:28 PM | #29 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildexceptinthemostblatentlyobviouscaseswhichthisoneseemsnotyetAlaska ™©2002-2010 |
|
October 26, 2010, 07:04 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Fair enough, but it seems a policy unlikely to lead to reversals of wrongful convictions. Some of us have to turn over the pile a few times for that to happen.
|
October 29, 2010, 11:57 PM | #31 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2010
Posts: 1
|
Brian Aitken and the BS from New Jersey.
I am very greatful that I left New Jersey and I really feel sorry for Brian and his family. He was perfectly leagal but New Jersey has to interfer with everything and now this mans life is destroyed just like they do everyone else's. I didn't get out of that gargage state in time. Brian I will be praying for you and your family.
|
November 30, 2010, 09:59 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Another tidbit of information in this new thread:
Quote:
|
|
November 30, 2010, 01:40 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
|
I found it difficult to get an un-biased article about this case. Most are pro-gun and right wing. It does seem that there was some sort of run in with his ex-wife before his arrest. He was moving from Colorado to New Jersey and had his pistols stored as per Ney Jersey law. Too bad he forgot to get rid of his ammo and he had high cap mags (illegal in New Jersey) in the truck with his guns.
I don't agree with New Jersey's laws; but I don't live there. Many east coast states have very restrictive gun laws. Did New Jersey have the right to convict him? Yes Is this a miscarriage of justice? Probably 1. The police could have just warned him that he was not in compliance with New Jersey law. They could have also just taken his ammo and magazines. They choose to arrest. 2. The district attorney could have choosen not prosecute. He went for it. 3. The judge could have been lenient. He was not. I think the whole case comes down to the 911 call and the possibility domestic violence. There is a lot here we just don't know. |
December 1, 2010, 03:50 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2007
Location: spring tx
Posts: 1,037
|
Get use to it, your living in a country that has been taking "your rights" away a little bit at a time and you never new it. Why ? How ? cause we're to dam lazy to demand the federal and state governments to uphold "our constitutional" rights, and as long as a right is lost and doesn't personally effect someone, they don't care about the next person, on till it's to late. My .02
|
December 1, 2010, 10:15 AM | #35 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
This article has new information. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
December 4, 2010, 05:27 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
December 4, 2010, 09:04 AM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Some details are beginning to emerge.
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2010, 02:09 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 169
|
heres the NRA's story http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6087
I heard on the news today "Brian Aitken's case is currently under review by the Governor of new jersey Chris Christie" (not sure if that's true,it was on the news.) Being a resident of NJ, this case deeply concerns me. It's been the talk of the NJ firearm community lately, hopefully something is done about it. |
December 5, 2010, 09:12 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Al, that may well be true, but it takes some of us longer to move than others. As long as you're in a kind of temporary situation and a lot of your stuff, possibly including guns, is still packed up, you're still moving in the sense that you have not yet moved to your eventual residence.
In my case, I moved here from Miami over a period of about 6 months, carrying more and more stuff each time I came over for a week, and carrying little or nothing on the return trips. |
December 5, 2010, 09:14 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2010, 11:15 AM | #41 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Publius, I'm not denying that point. What I am saying is that there may well have been some justification in concluding that Aitkins was not moving. Regardless, if Aitkins was in fact still moving, Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception.
There's an awful lot to this case that we just don't know. Take the initial search, for example. Was it performed with Aitkins voluntary consent? If not, what was the basis for probable cause? |
December 5, 2010, 01:36 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Not saying he was ok in either not knowing the law or pushing the limit of what he did know.....but 7 years for a non-violent offense when the guns were in the trunk, and the offender doesn't have some history of criminality....seems excessive.
How bout 2 years probation w/mental evaluation, a big fine, loss of firearm rights in the state, 200 hours community service and 30 days in jail? 7 years? It just seems too much, just an observation....bordering on Draconian.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2010, 02:04 PM | #43 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Alloy, yet that remedy would still make him prohibited person (for life), according to Fed law - We have to assume 2 years probation is in lieu of 2 years incarceration.
|
December 5, 2010, 02:10 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Yes, I'm sure I didn't state the best alternatives...all or in part.
I just feel the judge should have had alternatives, or combinations of alternatives...be they right or wrong....to 7 years. Saw it on the news last night, and it strikes me as a sentence reserved for a multiple or perhaps violent offender worthy of throwing the book at. Maybe some facts are missing, maybe it just makes me feel sick to think the country has pockets acting this way....with me being from the great state of Virginia....I'll count my blessings.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
December 5, 2010, 02:33 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,113
|
Quote:
Good question. Sounds like the guy had a sorry lawyer. The ball got rolling when Aitken's mom called the cops: Then it went faster, faster and faster until Aitken landed up in prison. Last edited by thallub; December 5, 2010 at 02:41 PM. |
|
December 6, 2010, 10:53 AM | #46 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4
|
I mean as much as I hate to see this guy imprisoned for this you should never live in a state like New Jersey. Really the difference between living in a normal state in regards to gun laws and the Northeast is just incredible. People in the North fear firearms more than anyone I have ever met and as far as I am concerned are a lost cause in regards to firearm education. As long as we can prevent them from imposing their will on the rest of us at the Federal level they can have their absurd laws and we can have our freedom to choose and live as we please.
|
December 6, 2010, 01:48 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
His lawyer wrote the book on NJ gun laws. Really. Buy one here...
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperbac...-guide/5505852 |
December 6, 2010, 06:10 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
|
From Al Norris
"Publius, I'm not denying that point. What I am saying is that there may well have been some justification in concluding that Aitkins was not moving. Regardless, if Aitkins was in fact still moving, Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception." Sorry, but you're wrong here. Any point of law that is to be given to the jury must come from the judge. Neither prosecution nor defense are allowed to instruct the jury in the law. If the judge gave bad or false information to the jury then there is a good chance the conviction will be overturned on appeal. Too bad most appeals take a year or more to work their way through the courts. |
December 6, 2010, 08:45 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I think you misunderstood, dlb435. When I wrote, "Aitkins should have been allowed to present evidence of the exception." - As in, present evidence at the trial, not at the closing arguments. No one presents "evidence" in opening or closing arguments.
Because Aitkins attorney says that they did this, then it was most likely rebutted by the prosecution. If this is so, then the Judge, by failing to include the exception to the law in his jury instructions, committed a reversible error. |
December 7, 2010, 06:22 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
If the judge bought the prosecution's rebuttal, then not including that part of the law was not an error. If the appeals court finds the rebuttal similarly convincing, Aitken is going to lose. While I have some personal experience with taking months to move and some sympathy for a guy locked up for something that should not be a crime, I am having a bit of trouble completely buying his "I was moving" defense. |
|
|
|