Brian Aitken in New Jersey prison for legal firearms

publius42 · October 21, 2010, 06:05 AM

This story raises more questions than it answers, but here goes. What is going on here?

how-can-new-jersey-imprison-a-gun-owner-who-broke-no-laws

Judge Napolitano weighs in.

Seems pretty outrageous, if true, but there is little discussion of this case anywhere. Anyone know more?

geetarman · October 21, 2010, 07:30 AM

Very disturbing to say the least.

Geetarman

JWT · October 21, 2010, 07:54 AM

I would think his 'conviction' would be overturned in appeal assuming the facts in the article are correct. Unfortunately it will cost him money to pursue his innocence.

A/C Guy · October 21, 2010, 09:30 AM

Another reason to not live in a state that restricts your rights and freedoms.

Not only will I never live in such a state, abuses like this by the state is a major deciding factor when I purchase stuff. Vote with your dollars. Don't vacation in those states, don't buy stuff manufactured in those states. And most importantly, don't live there.

markj · October 21, 2010, 04:07 PM

When someones mom calls 911 and says she thinks her son may commit suicide and has a trunk full of guns........ What would you do if an LEO? it just kept getting worse for this guy. I hope it ends well for him but I doubt it will.

publius42 · October 21, 2010, 06:48 PM

I'd think an LEO would want to stabilize the situation, in general. Specifically, that would mean verifying the legality of the firearms, especially in a place like New Jersey. So I can see why the LEOs would ask where they were and ask him to open the trunk so they could look at them.

There is little and conflicting evidence of what really happened beyond that, which is one reason I posted this thread.

He says he was moving, had asked how to bring his guns into the state, and was in the process of doing so legally, meanwhile storing them in a legal manner in the trunk. At least that is what I think he says.

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.

Apparently. What the heck really happened here?

silentargus · October 21, 2010, 08:13 PM

This being NJ we're talking about, nothing would surprise me. This judge refused to allow the jury to see the whole picture, effectively convicting a man based on his own opinion. It's a particularly egregious example of antis in positions of power abusing that power to enforce their opinions... it's not unheard of for some police departments to refuse to issue FPID cards or handgun purchase permits as a matter of department policy. The NJ state police have an unwritten but well-known "confiscate first, ask questions never" policy regarding guns in cars, even when they're legally owned and transported (common wisdom around here is to bring all paperwork everywhere whenever transporting guns or ammo).

If the guns in question weren't registered in NJ (which is not a legal requirement if they were owned before you move to the state), it would hardly surprise me if the cops who made the arrest and confiscation just didn't know any better- the powers that be have never gone out of their way to discourage the belief that a gun must be illegal unless it's got NJ paperwork. That, I'm assuming, is the exemption in question.

What's surprising is that the case and conviction weren't tossed the moment it came to light that there was judicial misconduct... especially since the judge was later canned for misconduct in a different trial. I would hope that the case is at least under review and will be dismissed eventually, but this being the DPRNJ... it's entirely possible that those responsible for looking into the matter might be intentionally dragging their heels.

Truly, it is not easy to own guns in this state. We may have a 2A-friendly governor now, but the legislature, judiciary, and many of our PDs and local officials (though thankfully not our boys in blue!) are still heavily anti.

IZZY · October 22, 2010, 04:24 AM

Is the NRA offering assistance???

I dont see it here:
http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Jersey

MLeake · October 22, 2010, 04:50 AM

NJ members, write your congressfolk, AG, and governor.

NRA members, write the NRA.

Copy of the email I just sent to the NRA (subject was Brian Aitken case in New Jersey):

Quote:

Dear NRA legal crew,

As a Life member, I'd like to know why this case isn't on the NRA's current litigation list for New Jersey. It appears to have been an egregious abuse of power by the trial judge, denying the defense the right to have exemptions that pertained in the case read to the jury. Now a man is facing seven years in prison, although based on those exemptions he had committed no crime.

This seems like exactly the sort of case the NRA should not only be taking up, but trumpeting to the heavens.

Regards,

Mr Lucky · October 22, 2010, 05:09 AM

There may be more to this. It would be interesting to see the court documents.

Nice jury though, a real stand up bunch.

They are not a jury of his peers.

His lawyer must have been some clown he found in the yellow pages or an anti gun public defender.

publius42 · October 22, 2010, 06:16 AM

Thanks for your suggestion, MLeake.

This guy needs to get a pardon from the governor, but that's not going to happen based on the vague story we know so far.

When we know the whole story, some of us may think it does not need to happen at all.

MLeake · October 22, 2010, 06:39 AM

... your pessimism may be well-founded. There may be more to it.

But even if there is, the judge's instructions to the jury probably merit a re-trial.

MLeake · October 22, 2010, 08:55 AM

.. as follows:

Quote:

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund provided a grant of $7,500 to a criminal case involving a Brian D. Aitken in New Jersey.

They didn't provide any more detail than that, so I don't know when they made the grant, nor if they are doing anything else.

But it's a start.

leadcounsel · October 22, 2010, 11:57 AM

I haven't read it yet, but it seems outrageous to imprison someone for a felony for merely possessing an object that is perfectly legal to possess in most other places in the country.

Wildalaska · October 22, 2010, 12:10 PM

Since no one here has even mentioned whether this matter was terminated by entry of a plea of guilty or after trial, since no one here has apparently studied the actual proceedings, isnt it sort of silly to get all worked up about this situation?

Question to Jersyites screeching about corruption...did ya'll get worked up about Hurricane Carter?

NB: If this guy is so innocent and the whole proceedings such a farce, why hasnt he been released on bail pending appeal? Or is the entire Jersey judicial system corrupt

WildjustanothercriminalwhinerAlaska ™©2002-2010

publius42 · October 22, 2010, 12:33 PM

Wild, if you read the various reports, it seems there WAS a trial, the jury three times asked the judge to tell them the law exempting people who are moving into Jersey from registration, and he refused, so they voted guilty, not knowing much about jury nullification, it seems.

Apparently. It seems. I'd really like to see some evidence of what really happened.

leadcounsel · October 22, 2010, 12:42 PM

Skimmed it. Seems it was a jury trial. Judge refused to answer juries 3 requests for mitigating/lawful ownership/transportation law question. Jury followed the (incomplete) law they had and found him guilty.

Does amaze me that a jury would follow, in good conscience, a bad law (despite being ordered to do so). Seems at least ONE person would refuse.

publius42 · October 22, 2010, 12:54 PM

I'm thinking we might need to carpet-bomb NJ courthouses with pamphlets from http://www.fija.org

Wildalaska · October 22, 2010, 01:22 PM

Ok so now we have some facts we can assume from. So time for your morning lesson in gneral trial procedure. Jury trial. Defense asks for a charge (instruction) on the law to the jury, that charge being how the defense sees the case. The prosecution asks for their charge, how they see the case. The judge charges (instructs) based on those requests, in this case leaving out the defense requests. I doubt that the jury asked for something outside the charge given by the Court (their function is to apply the law as given), rather they would ask for clarification of the law, the defense again could have been rebuffed in its attempt to get their specific language in.

That by the way is how you build a record on appeal which in criminal defense terms means you throw EVERYTHING, justified, or not in there.

Why did the Court not charge the way the defense asked? Ignorance, idiocy or corruption?...or that there was no factual basis for the requested charge! All are possible, and we havent seen the trial transcript.

So now the guy is in jail and Im sure that he is raising on appeal the error in denying the defense charge.

But now I ask, if it was such an error, why isnt out on bail pending appeal?

WildistheremoreherethatnweseeAlaska ™©2002-2010

DogoDon · October 22, 2010, 02:41 PM

I was able to find this document on the web, purportedly coming from Mr. Aitken's defense attorney. Can't vouch for its validity, folks, but here it is:

http://briandaitken.com/content/2010...aryofFacts.pdf

publius42 · October 22, 2010, 03:04 PM

Wow, did a 5 year old scan that for him? This guy is in the tech/marketing world?

His attorney makes the judge sound unreasonable, but that is his job.

Mr Lucky · October 22, 2010, 06:50 PM

Not much more here. Since it appears his case is being appealed, the court transcripts might not be available although they do show up in several pay record search databases.

http://www.the-912-project.com/2009/...ars-in-prison/

http://www.the-912-project.com/2009/...v-brian-aitken

http://briandaitken.com/

wally626 · October 22, 2010, 08:23 PM

Read the PDF listed by DogoDan, most of the defense for possession seemed to be based on lawful transportation issues. However, the listed defense for the hi-cap magazines was that the police never tested the guns to see if the magazines could actually fire 15-rounds, not just hold them. This part seems pretty weak.

Gary L. Griffiths · October 22, 2010, 09:24 PM

There well may be more than meets the eye in this case. It appears that Aitken stopped to visit his parents at their home while enroute from his old house to his new one. The FOPA requires the trip be made directly with only such stops as are reasonably necessary.

If that is the case, then the FOPA requirements weren't met, and the judge would have been right in refusing to allow the defense to put up an FOPA defense.

Mind you, I don't agree with NJ's prosecuting Mr. Aitken (or much else that NJ does), but this may not have been so outrageous.

publius42 · October 23, 2010, 01:41 AM

Wally, I don't buy that either. I suspect that for most of us, the various gun bits we have around the house work together like you would think they would. Yes, that silly 30 round mag will fit in my Glock and feed about 25 rounds before it jams because the spring is old.

Gary, that's getting pretty picky and anti-family in the interpretation of the FOPA, don't you think? I think the idea of the law is that you can't move from Florida to Louisiana with a detour through Maine. In any case, the defense claim is that New Jersey law also has a transportation exemption that covers Mr. Aitken.

October 21, 2010, 06:05 AM	#1
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	Brian Aitken in New Jersey prison for legal firearms This story raises more questions than it answers, but here goes. What is going on here? how-can-new-jersey-imprison-a-gun-owner-who-broke-no-laws Judge Napolitano weighs in. Seems pretty outrageous, if true, but there is little discussion of this case anywhere. Anyone know more?

October 22, 2010, 05:09 AM	#10
Mr Lucky Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2010 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 195	There may be more to this. It would be interesting to see the court documents. Nice jury though, a real stand up bunch. They are not a jury of his peers. His lawyer must have been some clown he found in the yellow pages or an anti gun public defender. __________________ ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’ — Abraham Lincoln

October 22, 2010, 06:39 AM	#12
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	publius42... ... your pessimism may be well-founded. There may be more to it. But even if there is, the judge's instructions to the jury probably merit a re-trial.

October 22, 2010, 06:50 PM	#22
Mr Lucky Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2010 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 195	Brian Aitken Not much more here. Since it appears his case is being appealed, the court transcripts might not be available although they do show up in several pay record search databases. http://www.the-912-project.com/2009/...ars-in-prison/ http://www.the-912-project.com/2009/...v-brian-aitken http://briandaitken.com/ __________________ ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’ — Abraham Lincoln

October 22, 2010, 09:24 PM	#24
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	There well may be more than meets the eye in this case. It appears that Aitken stopped to visit his parents at their home while enroute from his old house to his new one. The FOPA requires the trip be made directly with only such stops as are reasonably necessary. If that is the case, then the FOPA requirements weren't met, and the judge would have been right in refusing to allow the defense to put up an FOPA defense. Mind you, I don't agree with NJ's prosecuting Mr. Aitken (or much else that NJ does), but this may not have been so outrageous. __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

October 21, 2010, 07:30 AM	#2
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	Very disturbing to say the least. Geetarman

October 21, 2010, 07:54 AM	#3
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	I would think his 'conviction' would be overturned in appeal assuming the facts in the article are correct. Unfortunately it will cost him money to pursue his innocence.

October 21, 2010, 09:30 AM	#4
A/C Guy Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2007 Location: Apache Junction, Az Posts: 308	Another reason to not live in a state that restricts your rights and freedoms. Not only will I never live in such a state, abuses like this by the state is a major deciding factor when I purchase stuff. Vote with your dollars. Don't vacation in those states, don't buy stuff manufactured in those states. And most importantly, don't live there.

October 21, 2010, 04:07 PM	#5
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	When someones mom calls 911 and says she thinks her son may commit suicide and has a trunk full of guns........ What would you do if an LEO? it just kept getting worse for this guy. I hope it ends well for him but I doubt it will.

October 21, 2010, 06:48 PM	#6
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	I'd think an LEO would want to stabilize the situation, in general. Specifically, that would mean verifying the legality of the firearms, especially in a place like New Jersey. So I can see why the LEOs would ask where they were and ask him to open the trunk so they could look at them. There is little and conflicting evidence of what really happened beyond that, which is one reason I posted this thread. He says he was moving, had asked how to bring his guns into the state, and was in the process of doing so legally, meanwhile storing them in a legal manner in the trunk. At least that is what I think he says. 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. Apparently. What the heck really happened here?

October 21, 2010, 08:13 PM	#7
silentargus Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2010 Posts: 146	This being NJ we're talking about, nothing would surprise me. This judge refused to allow the jury to see the whole picture, effectively convicting a man based on his own opinion. It's a particularly egregious example of antis in positions of power abusing that power to enforce their opinions... it's not unheard of for some police departments to refuse to issue FPID cards or handgun purchase permits as a matter of department policy. The NJ state police have an unwritten but well-known "confiscate first, ask questions never" policy regarding guns in cars, even when they're legally owned and transported (common wisdom around here is to bring all paperwork everywhere whenever transporting guns or ammo). If the guns in question weren't registered in NJ (which is not a legal requirement if they were owned before you move to the state), it would hardly surprise me if the cops who made the arrest and confiscation just didn't know any better- the powers that be have never gone out of their way to discourage the belief that a gun must be illegal unless it's got NJ paperwork. That, I'm assuming, is the exemption in question. What's surprising is that the case and conviction weren't tossed the moment it came to light that there was judicial misconduct... especially since the judge was later canned for misconduct in a different trial. I would hope that the case is at least under review and will be dismissed eventually, but this being the DPRNJ... it's entirely possible that those responsible for looking into the matter might be intentionally dragging their heels. Truly, it is not easy to own guns in this state. We may have a 2A-friendly governor now, but the legislature, judiciary, and many of our PDs and local officials (though thankfully not our boys in blue!) are still heavily anti.

October 22, 2010, 04:24 AM	#8
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	Is the NRA offering assistance??? I dont see it here: http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Jersey

October 22, 2010, 06:16 AM	#11
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	Thanks for your suggestion, MLeake. This guy needs to get a pardon from the governor, but that's not going to happen based on the vague story we know so far. When we know the whole story, some of us may think it does not need to happen at all.

October 22, 2010, 11:57 AM	#14
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	I haven't read it yet, but it seems outrageous to imprison someone for a felony for merely possessing an object that is perfectly legal to possess in most other places in the country.

October 22, 2010, 12:10 PM	#15
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Since no one here has even mentioned whether this matter was terminated by entry of a plea of guilty or after trial, since no one here has apparently studied the actual proceedings, isnt it sort of silly to get all worked up about this situation? Question to Jersyites screeching about corruption...did ya'll get worked up about Hurricane Carter? NB: If this guy is so innocent and the whole proceedings such a farce, why hasnt he been released on bail pending appeal? Or is the entire Jersey judicial system corrupt WildjustanothercriminalwhinerAlaska ™©2002-2010

October 22, 2010, 12:33 PM	#16
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	Wild, if you read the various reports, it seems there WAS a trial, the jury three times asked the judge to tell them the law exempting people who are moving into Jersey from registration, and he refused, so they voted guilty, not knowing much about jury nullification, it seems. Apparently. It seems. I'd really like to see some evidence of what really happened.

October 22, 2010, 12:42 PM	#17
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	Skimmed it. Seems it was a jury trial. Judge refused to answer juries 3 requests for mitigating/lawful ownership/transportation law question. Jury followed the (incomplete) law they had and found him guilty. Does amaze me that a jury would follow, in good conscience, a bad law (despite being ordered to do so). Seems at least ONE person would refuse.

October 22, 2010, 12:54 PM	#18
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	I'm thinking we might need to carpet-bomb NJ courthouses with pamphlets from http://www.fija.org

October 22, 2010, 01:22 PM	#19
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Ok so now we have some facts we can assume from. So time for your morning lesson in gneral trial procedure. Jury trial. Defense asks for a charge (instruction) on the law to the jury, that charge being how the defense sees the case. The prosecution asks for their charge, how they see the case. The judge charges (instructs) based on those requests, in this case leaving out the defense requests. I doubt that the jury asked for something outside the charge given by the Court (their function is to apply the law as given), rather they would ask for clarification of the law, the defense again could have been rebuffed in its attempt to get their specific language in. That by the way is how you build a record on appeal which in criminal defense terms means you throw EVERYTHING, justified, or not in there. Why did the Court not charge the way the defense asked? Ignorance, idiocy or corruption?...or that there was no factual basis for the requested charge! All are possible, and we havent seen the trial transcript. So now the guy is in jail and Im sure that he is raising on appeal the error in denying the defense charge. But now I ask, if it was such an error, why isnt out on bail pending appeal? WildistheremoreherethatnweseeAlaska ™©2002-2010

October 22, 2010, 02:41 PM	#20
DogoDon Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2010 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 368	I was able to find this document on the web, purportedly coming from Mr. Aitken's defense attorney. Can't vouch for its validity, folks, but here it is: http://briandaitken.com/content/2010...aryofFacts.pdf

October 22, 2010, 03:04 PM	#21
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	Wow, did a 5 year old scan that for him? This guy is in the tech/marketing world? His attorney makes the judge sound unreasonable, but that is his job.

October 22, 2010, 08:23 PM	#23
wally626 Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2009 Posts: 642	Read the PDF listed by DogoDan, most of the defense for possession seemed to be based on lawful transportation issues. However, the listed defense for the hi-cap magazines was that the police never tested the guns to see if the magazines could actually fire 15-rounds, not just hold them. This part seems pretty weak.

October 23, 2010, 01:41 AM	#25
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	Wally, I don't buy that either. I suspect that for most of us, the various gun bits we have around the house work together like you would think they would. Yes, that silly 30 round mag will fit in my Glock and feed about 25 rounds before it jams because the spring is old. Gary, that's getting pretty picky and anti-family in the interpretation of the FOPA, don't you think? I think the idea of the law is that you can't move from Florida to Louisiana with a detour through Maine. In any case, the defense claim is that New Jersey law also has a transportation exemption that covers Mr. Aitken.