From Al Norris:
"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."
That's the point. The attornies CAN NOT read the law into the record at the trial. It cannot be entered as part of the evidnce or in closing argumnets. That is the job of the judge. The only way to get this into the record would have been to get the police to testify as to what they told him before he moved to NJ. I went to the NJ state police site. They don't give a straight answer and tell you to consult a lawyer. They clearly state that they will not give legal advice.
As to the exception in the law, this could get tricky. If he had gone straight to his new residence and un-packed his car he would have been fine. He chose to stop at his ex-wifes first. That may have nullified the exception to the law.
This is a little off topic but I remember when a famous singer was caught with an illegal handgun in New York. It had been a present from some friends. The district attorney choose not to prosecute and the whole thing was dropped. Too bad Aitkins didn't get a break from the NJ district attornny.