N.J. Man Serving 7 Years for Guns He Legally Owned

[liebuster]

I question his demeanor during the arrest and subsequent trial.

I agree he was not given a fair trial.

OTOH, why was he packing hollow points? Recently divorced suicidal guy with multiple large magazines and hollow points sounds like a tragedy in the making.

Cause those are what is used for self defense rounds. I know they sound "scary" and all but they are very very very common.

You use the cheap FMJ(full metal jacket) rounds for practice and you use the hollow points for self defense.

And by the way I'm willing to bet those were standard capacity magazines.

The media likes to change the wording of things and they took a standard magazine and called it "high capacity magazine" and they took semi auto rifles and called them "assault rifles". The brady campaign turds are starting to call hunting rifles with scopes "sniper rifles"

Its your standard psycological manipulation through language. They just change the name and make something bad, sound good and something perfectly fine, sound bad.

You remember when it was first "healthcare reform" and then it became "health insurance reform"

Or when it was "global warming" and then it became "climate change"

Or the "patriot act" but it is actually unpatriotic

Or "voluntary social security insurance" but its actually "mandatory ponzi scheme"

 

[liebuster]

Do you think they combine well with melodrama?

They combine well with a person willing to defend their life instead of calling 911 to arrive in 5 minutes. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

 

[MikeK]

If I lived anywhere else I would find this case surprising. But I live in New Jersey so I'm not the least bit surprised by it. New Jersey is by far the worst gun state in the Union and this kind of insanity is not at all uncommon here. New Jersey is a police state.

Nothing this man did can be morally thought of as criminal behavior, yet he is being punished more severely than are some who commit forcible rape or armed robbery. What would his punishment be if he had carried a loaded gun on his person without a permit? Execution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He legally bought them in Co but was not legal with them in NJ where he transported them to.

Sucks, but not legal in NJ.

from your link:

Buried in the trunk, beneath piles of clothes and boxes of dishes, was a black duffle bag holding a boot box containing two handguns; "unloaded, disassembled, cleaned and wrapped in a cloth," his father said.

There were also several large-capacity magazines and cartons of hollow-point bullets.

Aitken had legally purchased the guns at a Denver sporting goods store two years earlier, he said.

But transporting a gun without a special permit or in a handful of exempt situations is illegal in New Jersey, giving officers no choice but to arrest Aitken and charge him with a crime. The magazines and bullets are also illegal in the state, experts said.

Apparently you like to pick and choose when you peruse a news story.

"As anyone who has moved cross-country will tell you, it's a messy process," Larry Aitken said. But the judge in the case did not allow the jury to consider the moving exemption during the trail, ruling that no evidence was presented that Aitken was actually moving at the time the guns were found. Aitken did not testify in the trial.
"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another," Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, told ABC News. "Those points do not establish that the defendant was moving."

He was unable to provide the affirmative defense that what he was doing was completely legal, or even mention that he had contacted NJ state police and asked about the laws, which is why they were unloaded and disassembled, which is one of the handful of exceptions to the law in NJ you quoted.


That, in case you are wondering, is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You knew he was wrong, and you found only the facts that supported your belief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My cuz was fined for accidentally forgetting to take his handgun out of his carry on. TSA burned him for 7,000. Dumbass, that'll learn him. No prison though.

And that, if you ask me, is much more serious than having disassembled weapons in the trunk of your car, buried near the bottom. Just another reason to not allow the police to search your property even if you are not doing anything wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I question his demeanor during the arrest and subsequent trial.

I agree he was not given a fair trial.

OTOH, why was he packing hollow points? Recently divorced suicidal guy with multiple large magazines and hollow points sounds like a tragedy in the making.

Sure it does, since every recently divorced gun owner always goes on a rampage, shooting many innocent people before killing himself.

Bullshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There were also several large-capacity magazines and cartons of hollow-point bullets.

Holy Dog-doo! Throw him in Gitmo!

 

[M14 Shooter]

OTOH, why was he packing hollow points?

Presmung that the guns were for self-defense, hollow-point ammunition and hi-cap magazines are perfectly appropriate.

 

[Montrovant]

He legally bought them in Co but was not legal with them in NJ where he transported them to.

Sucks, but not legal in NJ.

from your link:

Buried in the trunk, beneath piles of clothes and boxes of dishes, was a black duffle bag holding a boot box containing two handguns; "unloaded, disassembled, cleaned and wrapped in a cloth," his father said.

There were also several large-capacity magazines and cartons of hollow-point bullets.

Aitken had legally purchased the guns at a Denver sporting goods store two years earlier, he said.

But transporting a gun without a special permit or in a handful of exempt situations is illegal in New Jersey, giving officers no choice but to arrest Aitken and charge him with a crime. The magazines and bullets are also illegal in the state, experts said.

Apparently you like to pick and choose when you peruse a news story.

"As anyone who has moved cross-country will tell you, it's a messy process," Larry Aitken said. But the judge in the case did not allow the jury to consider the moving exemption during the trail, ruling that no evidence was presented that Aitken was actually moving at the time the guns were found. Aitken did not testify in the trial.
"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another," Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, told ABC News. "Those points do not establish that the defendant was moving."

He was unable to provide the affirmative defense that what he was doing was completely legal, or even mention that he had contacted NJ state police and asked about the laws, which is why they were unloaded and disassembled, which is one of the handful of exceptions to the law in NJ you quoted.


That, in case you are wondering, is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You knew he was wrong, and you found only the facts that supported your belief.

If I'm reading this correctly, the exemption is for when you are in the process of moving from one residence to another; based on what was said, they mean when you are actually physically transporting things from one place to another, not during the entire process of the move. I imagine that would be because a person could take months to complete a move if they wanted to, and be exempt the entire time. But if the exemption only counts during actual physical transportation of property from one location to another, that's not so much of a problem.

So, based on the information provided, he was unable to prove that he was in the process of transporting items from one residence to another, therefor ineligible for the exemption, and so not allowed to use it as part of his defense. It does not sound as though they prevented him from presenting evidence that showed he was eligible for the exemption.

I'm not defending the morality of righteousness of NJ's gun laws. I just think you are misinterpreting the information provided.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He legally bought them in Co but was not legal with them in NJ where he transported them to.

Sucks, but not legal in NJ.

from your link:

Buried in the trunk, beneath piles of clothes and boxes of dishes, was a black duffle bag holding a boot box containing two handguns; "unloaded, disassembled, cleaned and wrapped in a cloth," his father said.

There were also several large-capacity magazines and cartons of hollow-point bullets.

Aitken had legally purchased the guns at a Denver sporting goods store two years earlier, he said.

But transporting a gun without a special permit or in a handful of exempt situations is illegal in New Jersey, giving officers no choice but to arrest Aitken and charge him with a crime. The magazines and bullets are also illegal in the state, experts said.

Apparently you like to pick and choose when you peruse a news story.

"As anyone who has moved cross-country will tell you, it's a messy process," Larry Aitken said. But the judge in the case did not allow the jury to consider the moving exemption during the trail, ruling that no evidence was presented that Aitken was actually moving at the time the guns were found. Aitken did not testify in the trial.
"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another," Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, told ABC News. "Those points do not establish that the defendant was moving."

He was unable to provide the affirmative defense that what he was doing was completely legal, or even mention that he had contacted NJ state police and asked about the laws, which is why they were unloaded and disassembled, which is one of the handful of exceptions to the law in NJ you quoted.


That, in case you are wondering, is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You knew he was wrong, and you found only the facts that supported your belief.

If I'm reading this correctly, the exemption is for when you are in the process of moving from one residence to another; based on what was said, they mean when you are actually physically transporting things from one place to another, not during the entire process of the move. I imagine that would be because a person could take months to complete a move if they wanted to, and be exempt the entire time. But if the exemption only counts during actual physical transportation of property from one location to another, that's not so much of a problem.

So, based on the information provided, he was unable to prove that he was in the process of transporting items from one residence to another, therefor ineligible for the exemption, and so not allowed to use it as part of his defense. It does not sound as though they prevented him from presenting evidence that showed he was eligible for the exemption.

I'm not defending the morality of righteousness of NJ's gun laws. I just think you are misinterpreting the information provided.

He was selling his house in one state and moving to NJ. He had called the NJ state police and asked about the laws and rules in NJ, had them explained in detail, and followed them. He then packed his things, drove across country, and stopped at his parents house for a brief time. The police called him, asked him to return to his parents house because his mother was worried about him, and he did so. What exactly was he doing that was not in compliance with both the law and the requests of law enforcement?

 

[jillian]

I think the issue here is more the fact that he got a seven year sentence with no criminal background. Absolutely no common sense was applied here. This isn't the first questionable action this judge has made either.

I agree with you about the length of the sentence being the issue. But it's not the first time I've heard about unjust sentencing. I think a drunk driver shouldn't get a slap on the wrist and I think Jonathan Pollard shouldn't be in prison for life; I think retardation should be a defense to the death penalty.

But the appellate courts have/had the option of overturning the verdict or shortening the sentence. Apaprently, they didn't or they wouldn't be asking for a gubernatorial pardon.

So I'm thinking that there's something missing maybe? Probably because the article is based on self-serving accounts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the issue here is more the fact that he got a seven year sentence with no criminal background. Absolutely no common sense was applied here. This isn't the first questionable action this judge has made either.

I agree with you about the length of the sentence being the issue. But it's not the first time I've heard about unjust sentencing. I think a drunk driver shouldn't get a slap on the wrist and I think Jonathan Pollard shouldn't be in prison for life; I think retardation should be a defense to the death penalty.

But the appellate courts have/had the option of overturning the verdict or shortening the sentence. Apaprently, they didn't or they wouldn't be asking for a gubernatorial pardon.

So I'm thinking that there's something missing maybe? Probably because the article is based on self-serving accounts.

They are asking for the governor to intervene to avoid the delays involved in an appeal, not because the appeals are exhausted. They just filed the first appeal, and I am sure you know that will take months, and even if the appellate court agrees with the defense it will not mean he gets out of prison, or even a new trial, because the prosecution can appeal if they loose.

My guess is this is a long shot because Christie is pretty willing to take stances that are controversial in defense of his principles. I doubt it will happen, but if it does it will have been worth the time and effort.

 

[Montrovant]

He was selling his house in one state and moving to NJ. He had called the NJ state police and asked about the laws and rules in NJ, had them explained in detail, and followed them. He then packed his things, drove across country, and stopped at his parents house for a brief time. The police called him, asked him to return to his parents house because his mother was worried about him, and he did so. What exactly was he doing that was not in compliance with both the law and the requests of law enforcement?

That is not how it played out according to the ABC news link in the OP. According to that article, Aitken called his mother and made a comment(s) about life not being worth living. She then called 911 but hung up...however they traced the calls location and sent police to her home. The police, according to the article, were there when Aitken returned.
Where are you getting your information from? It would seem to be somewhere other than the OP link, did I miss you saying something about it?

If the information you have is correct then, certainly, my opinion about this would change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was selling his house in one state and moving to NJ. He had called the NJ state police and asked about the laws and rules in NJ, had them explained in detail, and followed them. He then packed his things, drove across country, and stopped at his parents house for a brief time. The police called him, asked him to return to his parents house because his mother was worried about him, and he did so. What exactly was he doing that was not in compliance with both the law and the requests of law enforcement?

That is not how it played out according to the ABC news link in the OP. According to that article, Aitken called his mother and made a comment(s) about life not being worth living. She then called 911 but hung up...however they traced the calls location and sent police to her home. The police, according to the article, were there when Aitken returned.
Where are you getting your information from? It would seem to be somewhere other than the OP link, did I miss you saying something about it?

If the information you have is correct then, certainly, my opinion about this would change.

The guy is a web designer for a blog I follow and I have been following the story for a while. I just assumed all the available facts were in the OP.

Family: New Jersey man serving 7 years for guns he owned legally | Philadelphia Daily News | 11/30/2010

Brian Aitken's Mistake - Reason Magazine

brian d. aitken

 

[snjmom]

Thanks, I can see now why the moving defense wasn't available. Did he have a legal NJ residence at the time? Was he in the act of transporting his weapon from his previous residence to his new residence? If not, I can see why the exemption wasn't made available as a defense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks, I can see now why the moving defense wasn't available. Did he have a legal NJ residence at the time? Was he in the act of transporting his weapon from his previous residence to his new residence? If not, I can see why the exemption wasn't made available as a defense.

From the second link I just posted.

In December 2008 Aitken made a final trip back to Colorado to collect the last of his possessions, including the three handguns he had legally purchased in Colorado—transactions that required him to pass a federal background check. Aitken and his friend Michael Torries had found an apartment in Hoboken, and Torries accompanied Aitken to Colorado to help with the last leg of the move. According to testimony Torries later gave at Aitken's trial, before leaving Colorado Aitken researched and printed out New Jersey and federal gun laws to be sure he moved his firearms legally. Richard Gilbert, Aitken's trial attorney, says Aitken also called the New Jersey State Police to get advice on how to legally transport his guns, although Burlington County Superior Court Judge James Morley didn't allow testimony about that phone call at Aitken's trial.

He had an apartment and was in the process of transporting his property from his house in Colorado to his new apartment. Tell me again why the moving defense was not allowed because he really wasn't doing either of those things.

 

[snjmom]

Because he had been to the residence prior to the incident, at which point NJ law required he secure them to his premises.

When he drove to his parents house to pick up his belongings, did those belongings include his guns? If not, did he drive directly from his residence in CO to his parents house to pick up his belongings? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then he was not transporting his guns according to the moving exception. As the judge said, it doesn't give one the right to drive around with guns in your trunk for weeks while one gets a job, rents a home, tells mom you want to kill yourself over that selfish bitch, etc. Point A to Point B, only exception under that clause.

Now, I do agree that the sentencing and the law itself are excessive. But, how are you gonna drop a gangbanger down that hole if you exempt the law-abiding citizen?

Edited to add
Aitken's legal troubles began in January 2009, when he drove to his parents' house to pick up some of his belongings.

In December 2008 Aitken made a final trip back to Colorado to collect the last of his possessions, including the three handguns he had legally purchased in Colorado—transactions that required him to pass a federal background check





Note the timing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because he had been to the residence prior to the incident, at which point NJ law required he secure them to his premises.

When he drove to his parents house to pick up his belongings, did those belongings include his guns? If not, did he drive directly from his residence in CO to his parents house to pick up his belongings? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then he was not transporting his guns according to the moving exception. As the judge said, it doesn't give one the right to drive around with guns in your trunk for weeks while one gets a job, rents a home, tells mom you want to kill yourself over that selfish bitch, etc. Point A to Point B, only exception under that clause.

Now, I do agree that the sentencing and the law itself are excessive. But, how are you gonna drop a gangbanger down that hole if you exempt the law-abiding citizen?

Edited to add
Aitken's legal troubles began in January 2009, when he drove to his parents' house to pick up some of his belongings.

In December 2008 Aitken made a final trip back to Colorado to collect the last of his possessions, including the three handguns he had legally purchased in Colorado—transactions that required him to pass a federal background check





Note the timing.

You definitely have confirmation bias, don't you? His car was full of his belongings, including his weapons, because he was moving them from Colorado to his new residence in New Jersey. He stopped at his parents house on the way, and then left. When the police called him to check on his welfare, he returned to his parents house at their request. Where exactly during that chain of events did he get to his apartment and not take them out of his car?

Note the timing yourself.

 

[snjmom]

So, was he living in his car for the week that he had the guns in there?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, was he living in his car for the week that he had the guns in there?

No, he was driving from Colorado to New Jersey. Try it some time, it isn't like flying, it takes a few days.