Brian Aitken in New Jersey prison for legal firearms

That's right. Commutation of a sentence merely lessens the penalty, but the conviction remains on his record.

A pardon, on the other hand, would have wiped the conviction off his record.

DD
 
Seems to me an appeal of the conviction through the court system is still warranted. Otherwise the loss of his rights stays with him.
 
Yep, he's out of jail but he's still a convicted felon.

NJ Governor Christie is an unconscionable wimp. He should have granted a full pardon.
 
Most governors don't hand out pardons until their last day in office. Mr. Aitken needs to be sure he's on the list.
 
Here's the thing that some of you may not be thinking about.

With a commutation of sentence, Aitkins can still appeal to overturn the conviction (and not being behind bars means he can freely help in the appeal, moreso than locked up), whereas with a pardon, he cannot.

Should he lose the appeal, then he can ask for a pardon.

The point, of course, is that the appeal should will be based upon 2A rights and not exceptions to a set of laws that don't recognize self-defense as a fundamental right.

This could operate in tandem to Muller v. Maenz and its facial challenge to N.J. carry law.
 
Commutation or pardon still bothers me; granted it is a good step. But this man committed no crime. The only right solution is that his conviction is overturned and his guns returned to him. Commutation or pardon can be a good thing, say for a convicted criminal that shows remorse, turns around, lives a better life, etc.

I sent a fax to Institute for Justice today, asking if they work on firearms cases.

Also, mommas don't call the police on your sons like that. I'm sure the mom meant well, but if the son was suicidal, he would have done himself in by 1 method or another anyway. The scenario that happened would also not help a suicidal person "come back". If anything, would push him closer to the edge. Lots of people say stuff about how bad life is, etc. at some hard moments. Now the police that were involved will always see him with a certain stigma.
 
He did commit a crime. The jury said guilty and it's been recorded. Did you miss that part of the story?

John
 
I think that malicious judicial misconduct, being a violation of the defendant's right to due process, rather invalidates the conviction. Whether or not he had a fair trial is not in question; he didn't. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the tainted conviction will filter up through the bowels of the NJ courts and be overturned, as it ought to be.

Sadly, commutation is probably all the Governor could get away with. He's been taking a pretty hard line (well, as hard as it gets in NJ) and doing a pretty good job of ticking off the powers-that-be in the NJ Legislature; issuing a pardon now when those are traditionally granted at the end of a term would cause quite a stir. It's not right that a man should get screwed in the name of political expedience, but that's the game Christie's playing. For what it's worth, I think the guy's doing about as well as could be expected under the circumstances and is probably the best Governor NJ has had in decades. I don't agree with him on everything, and I wish he'd be a bit more aggressive in some areas, but it's night and day compared to Corzine or McGreevey. Either of those twerps would have let Mr. Aitken rot. Political rant over.
 
He got a jury trial of his peers. How can that not be getting due process? I don't agree with the verdict but that does not change the fact that he had a jury trial. His sentence got commuted and as pointed out he can still appeal his case from outside a prison cell.
 
Good point Silentargus, I didn't think of that. But I sure hope someone helps this man fight for justice. I sent a fax to Institute for Justice to see if they will take on firearms cases. Eminent domain abuse & business license abuse are largely the kinds of cases they do & seem to do a good job on them. National Association for Gun Rights says it sent thousands of petitions to NJ on his behalf.

I'd nearly forgotten this, but I saw a guy from NJ post on another forum awhile back. He almost apologized for being from there. I replied that he couldn't help what his politicians did, etc. and that there must be a few people there with the spirit of their forefathers from NJ who signed the Declaration of Independence. NJ citizens fought King George with the rest of our forefathers. I suspect it started decades ago that their politicians 1st turned against liberty & started chipping away at it. Started the frog in cold water, then slowly heated it up to boiling. Their politicians, like politicos everywhere, need to see angry voters on the doorstep to keep their thinking straight.

Does NJ have an active state level 2A group? That would be a big step in the right direction. If they don't have one, maybe a small group could start one. I'm sure any group in other states would be glad to help them get started. A handful of guys who are retired & have time to monitor legislative bodies & harass politicians would be the ideal core group.
 
Eghad and johnbt, the reason most of us think the conviction should be nullified is because the trial judge refused to let the jury be informed of points of NJ law regarding possession of weapons during a move. Had the jury been so informed, odds are the only conviction would have been over the hi-cap magazines (which are legal in around 90% of the country).
 
He got a jury trial of his peers. How can that not be getting due process?
Click to expand...

Why do we have appeals courts? Just because a judge and jury sat in a room and did something does not mean everything was kosher.
 
Is there any particular mention of exactly how "high capacity" his mags were? NJ law regarding magazine capacity is not as restrictive as CA's is; you can have up to 15rds in NJ. I'm assuming that he was caught with something bigger than that if he was charged with possession, but I wouldn't trust the media not to report anything over 10rds as "high capacity." If he was caught with them, yeah, it's a crime... a stupid crime, but a crime.

Plus, since when is moving your possessions from one place to another not "moving?" If he was storing the guns at his mother's place before the move, I fail to see how he'd have any choice but to go and pick them up if the place he was moving to was somewhere else. I'm well aware of NJ's laws against taking guns anywhere but between store, home, the range, or the gunsmith- those have been an inconvenience to me for as long as I've owned guns. However, I was not aware that it was illegal to transport guns from a place where they may legally be stored (in this case with family) to another place where you live.

Am I missing something here? Were the guns already in the car and he just stopped at mom's place to say hello? That would be illegal. Otherwise, does this mean it's illegal to, say, put your guns in a storage unit and later retrieve them? And wouldn't federal law cover you in this case- for moving guns between two places where it is legal to possess them?
 
silentargus said:
Plus, since when is moving your possessions from one place to another not "moving?" If he was storing the guns at his mother's place before the move, I fail to see how he'd have any choice but to go and pick them up if the place he was moving to was somewhere else. I'm well aware of NJ's laws against taking guns anywhere but between store, home, the range, or the gunsmith- those have been an inconvenience to me for as long as I've owned guns. However, I was not aware that it was illegal to transport guns from a place where they may legally be stored (in this case with family) to another place where you live.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that he moved from Colorado to New Jersey and lived in a temporary residence for some months, and was moving to a more permanent residence. So, are you still "moving" if you have not landed at your destination and been able to unpack your stuff?

The jury seems to have wanted to answer that question, three times asking the judge to give them the law on the subject.
 
"Eghad and johnbt, the reason most of us think..."

Did you think I didn't know that? I don't think what he did should be against the law. But it was.


"since when is moving your possessions from one place to another not "moving?"

When you're not moving between your old legal residence and your new legal residence. His momma testified he wasn't living there and his roomate testified he'd had an apartment for many months. He might have spent a day or three at his momma's, but his legal residence appears to have been an apartment. Therefore, he wasn't moving.

Laws tend to be very specific. Words have meanings and the law defines the words they use.
 
So that would mean that, if something happens to your legal residence- fire, flood, remodeling, etc- and you had to place most of your possessions (guns included) in storage while living at a temporary residence such as a motel (where guns might not be permitted), you would not be legally able to do so? I know a few people who have had to do just that for various reasons, though I don't think any of them owned any guns. That seems particularly out there even for NJ... surely that's one of the exceptions that the dishonorable judge refused to let the jury hear?

Learn something new every day I guess... and one more reason to get the *censored* outta NJ just as soon as humanly possible. :barf:

I could see where there might be courtroom trouble if you were using a friend or relative's place for storage. Without a paper trail, if your family member or friend didn't back you up (as mommy dear apparently didn't), you'd effectively have no proof of your side of the story. That, and none of the articles so far have been particularly clear on whether or not Aitken was storing his guns at his mom's place or if he just stopped there for a bit with the guns already in the car... which would be a major no-no in NJ; you can't even stop for gas on the way to the range without risking your hide.

One thing's for sure... if my family torpedoed me like that, I think I'd have to disown them. Glad I grew up in a gun-friendly house.
 
One could argue that due process has not occurred.

Consider that the 14th amendment's "Due Process Clause" and "Incorporation Doctrine" ensure that states guarantee the protection of the citizens rights listed in the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendments.

From McDonald v. Chicago:
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

I guess it all comes down to the courts interpretation of the RKBA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top