by The headline, “there is no justice for gun owners in New Jersey”, is a statement by Brian Aitken on the treatment that he and Shaneen Allen have received from that state’s justice system. He is featured in a new NRA News Report by Ginny Simone entitled “Accidental Criminals: Brian Aitken is Living the Nightmare”.
As both Aitken and Allen point out, if Ms. Allen had lied to the officer when stopped for the traffic violation in Atlantic County, New Jersey, she wouldn’t be facing up to 10 or more years in prison for being an “accidental criminal”. The judge in her case told her that telling the truth didn’t matter in this case; it got her in trouble. Isn’t incentivizing lying a perversion of any justice system?
Moreover, as Aitken points out, the gun laws of New Jersey are not meant to deter criminals but rather to deter honest citizens from actually owning firearms. Both judges and prosecutors want to use these “accidental criminals” as poster children for their goal of a disarmed public.
Every potential juror in Atlantic County should see this video along with Simone’s earlier one on Shaneen Allen. If they understood the ramifications, they might just vote “not guilty” in the jury room. Her case is a strong argument for jury nullification.
Damn, John … you've arrived! I'll be waiting for the inevitable Instalanche soon.
Congratulations!
Thanks!
I got my NJ Firearms ID after reading about the Brian Aitken case. Up until that time, I thought that I would always have the right to procure and keep guns. But the Brian Aitken case made it clear to me that this right could be taken away at any time, and that we were well down that path in New Jersey.
If it can be taken away at any time, it's not a right.
Wait. You need a special ID to own a firearm in New Jersey? And if they don't give you one…???
In a Constitutional state, you wouldn't have to provide identification, wouldn't have to wait, wouldn't have to have a background check. You could just buy a gun, strap it on, or carry it concealed, and the state would have nothing to say about it.
I don't doubt there's a certain element of DWB going on here as well.
The article ends, rightly, with the words "Jury Nullification". Judges hate this … I suspect that the judges involved in NJ gun-rights cases would hate it even more.
"Jury nullification" expands upon the concept that citizens are tried by JURIES of their peers … not by the judges.
.
Justice is now served by judges .. only unilateral application of existing law. Justice is served by juries.
Or not.
The time for violent revolution comes ever closer. The first American Revolution had far less provocation from government.
The blog is good enough I again n again read this. TZ