Is this the perfect gun case defendant?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
July 16, 2014, 04:54 PM
.
She's a black (minority), female, has 2 children and is single, with no criminal record, lives in a dangerous neighborhood and has a respectable job working in the medical field. I'm not sure you could ask for a more desirable candidate for a gun case.



http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/ShaneenAllen.jpg (http://s47.photobucket.com/user/usmarine0352/media/ShaneenAllen.jpg.html)




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/16/honest-mistake-leads-to-philly-mother-facing-three-years-on-gun-charge/






.
'Honest mistake' leads to Philly mother facing three years on gun charge

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published July 16, 2014


A Philadelphia mother of two is facing three years in prison after she mistakenly entered New Jersey, where she was stopped for a traffic violation and found in possession of a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets.

Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in New Jersey’s Atlantic County after making an unsafe lane change in the early morning hours of Oct. 1. Allen then told the officer that she had the .380 Bersa Thunder handgun, as well as a concealed carry permit for Pennsylvania, unaware that her permit was not transferable to The Garden State.

In early 2009, Aitken moved back to New Jersey from Colorado to be closer to his young son and estranged wife. A planned visit with his son was canceled at the last minute and his mother, who was concerned for his safety, called the police. A subsequent search of his car by officers revealed two locked and unloaded handguns in the trunk, both of which were purchased legally in Colorado.
.

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this the perfect gun case defendant?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Midwest
July 16, 2014, 05:03 PM
I have been following the threads at the NJgunforums.com regarding this. Lawyer Evan Nappen is her legal counsel, one of the best (if not the best) on the subject of New Jersey Gun Laws.

I also have been giving some input into this at at that site. (Read Post #68)

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/70719-another-victim-of-senseless-nj-laws/

.

dmancornell
July 16, 2014, 05:08 PM
Sad, tragic scenario.

Lesson learned: don't ever talk to the cops.

usmarine0352_2005
July 16, 2014, 05:15 PM
Wasn't like she had a choice to talk for the cops, she was pulled over on a traffic violation.

4banger
July 16, 2014, 05:33 PM
She didn't have to volunteer the info, but trying to be an upstanding citizen got her in trouble. The law is not your friend, and the NRA and the other orgs should jump behind this if it has to get elevated to higher courts.

H.m.B
July 16, 2014, 05:59 PM
I have mixed feelings about this.

A Philadelphia mother of two is facing three years in prison after she mistakenly entered New Jersey, where she was stopped for a traffic violation and found in possession of a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets.

If she truly entered NJ unknowingly (need to define " mistakenly") then this is an example where there should be national laws that are unmistakenly clear and consistent across the country. Otherwise, it's up to the owner to be aware of the differences between jurisdictions and knowing where you're at, especially when there is the possibility of crossing state lines and entering into restrictive territory.

On the other hand, the punishment should fit crime and if there was no ill intent and truly being a mistake and having no criminal background, then leniency should be shown with perhaps a fine but no prison time.

As a responsible gun owner, you gotta know the rules.

4banger
July 16, 2014, 06:09 PM
I have mixed feelings about this.



If she truly entered NJ unknowingly (need to define " mistakenly") then this is an example where there should be national laws that are unmistakenly clear and consistent across the country. Otherwise, it's up to the owner to be aware of the differences between jurisdictions and knowing where you're at, especially when there is the possibility of crossing state lines and entering into restrictive territory.

On the other hand, the punishment should fit crime and if there was no ill intent and truly being a mistake and having no criminal background, then leniency should be shown with perhaps a fine but no prison time.

As a responsible gun owner, you gotta know the rules.
Sounds all well and good, but people who keep track of laws and keep abreast of all the changes are called lawyers, and they get paid very well for doing so. We have more resources, now, but still it's way more nebulous than is reasonable.

larryh1108
July 16, 2014, 06:22 PM
If you travel over state lines you have to know the laws where you are going. You don't have to be a lawyer to know if it's legal or not. It may have been an honest mistake but it may cost her a lot of grief and money. I hope they just give her a fine and move on but NJ may want to make an example of her.

usmarine0352_2005
July 16, 2014, 06:49 PM
I hope the people that are hard on her are just as hard as the US Marine who accidently drove into Mexico and has been in a Mexican jail for months.

MachIVshooter
July 16, 2014, 07:02 PM
Atlantic county ain't exactly on the PA border; I don't think mistakenly entered the state is accurate at all.

If one is going to travel armed, one needs to know what the firearm laws are in their destination state, because Volker-McClure safe passage provisions only cover the places you are passing through. An oversight on her part, and it's going to cost her.

Having said that, I'm operating under the assumption that the arresting officer is a total (expletive). We're not talking about a car load of misfits here; unless she said or did something to provoke him, any cop with a conscience would have informed her of the law, had her lock the gun away in the trunk and confiscated/disposed of the ammunition. One day, he'll get his.

Twiki357
July 16, 2014, 07:57 PM
I donít know if itís the perfect case, but I sure hope she gets a judge with common sense. Itís also an excellent case for Federal mandate for universal recognition of carry permits.

Usmarine0352: ďI hope the people that are hard on her are just as hard as the US Marine who accidently drove into Mexico and has been in a Mexican jail for months.Ē

Letís see, New Jersey Ė Mexico. Not a whole lot of difference, is there?

usmarine0352_2005
July 16, 2014, 08:26 PM
TWiki357: both entered a different state/country accidentally. Neither planned on going there according to the articles.



And I'd dare venture to say it's easier to accidentally cross state likes then the border into another country.

RustyShackelford
July 16, 2014, 09:02 PM
First I'm not sure how or why the woman's race or economic background are issues. :confused:
I also agree that I don't know how she got into New Jersey by "mistake". :uhoh:
This woman(and other CCW license holders/gun owners) should take the time to learn & understand the laws.
Too many new gun owners or permit holders take 1 class or get a gun then say; "that's it" or "I don't need classes, training, legal defense plans, insurance, etc." :mad:

This is why things like www.gunvideo.com www.gunlawguide.com & www.handgunlaw.us are important. If a gun owner or CCW says; "hey so what" or "I don't care.", then I can not help them nor do I have any sympathy. :rolleyes:

usmarine0352_2005
July 16, 2014, 09:23 PM
RustyShackelford

First I'm not sure how or why the woman's race or economic background are issues.



Then you can't be helped.




;)

twofifty
July 16, 2014, 09:30 PM
nonetheless it was a victimless crime.
Put her in jail and now her kids are victimized.

redneck2
July 16, 2014, 09:40 PM
If you haven't driven in the hell hole called New Jersey, you have no friggin' clue what a mess it is. Once you get on some of the roads, it's impossible to get off for a while. I suspect that was what the illegal change thing was about. But, you're so smart that would never happen to you.

As for all you experts that talk about knowing the law.....uhhh, she didn't intend to go to Jersey. It's late, it's dark, and you've never driven the roads before. They are confusing as hell, and I had two navigators and it was daylight. Back off.This is why things like www.gunvideo.com www.gunlawguide.com & www.handgunlaw.us are important. If a gun owner or CCW says; "hey so what" or "I don't care.", then I can not help them nor do I have any sympathy.Wow. You are a real piece of work. Maybe you should contribute to Pelosi or Harry Reid. That's their thinking. Glad you always do everything 100% correctly. Just wow.

barnbwt
July 16, 2014, 09:45 PM
Only a matter of time until someone "nice" got caught up in the dragnet. Couldn't happen to a nicer person (literally). Huge messages about "knowing your stuff," "bewaring Officer Friendly," and remembering your defensive driving course, here. I'll at least give the officer the benefit of the doubt and assume she was 'somewhat combative' about the incident, which coupled with the gun, warranted such harsh treatment.

I cannot believe this will actually make it to trial. I assume charges are being pressed simply because she has not copped to a bogus misdemeanor as a jail-free alternative. If she is smart, she'll get an NRA-ILA lawyer to dispute the nature of the charges themselves as opposed to the specifics of the incident in question, for once (by which I mean "yes, I broke the law; but the law is stupid and illegal" instead of "no, I did not break the law, because...")

TCB

MachIVshooter
July 16, 2014, 09:46 PM
nonetheless it was a victimless crime.
Put her in jail and now her kids are victimized.

Not just victimless, but a petty offense at best. Mere possession of an item that is 49 states legal, possessed by a resident of another state.

As I said, she should have investigated the matter before traveling, but honestly, that's the kind of nuance that is not even considered a possibility by the overwhelming majority of gun people, let alone a mere gun owner. Should amount to no more than a wrist slap and small fine for a first-time non-resident offender. Anything more constitutes an 8th amendment violation, IMO

NoVA Shooter
July 17, 2014, 09:26 AM
Sounds all well and good, but people who keep track of laws and keep abreast of all the changes are called lawyers, and they get paid very well for doing so. We have more resources, now, but still it's way more nebulous than is reasonable.

I donít think anyone is asking for a CCW to keep track of all gun laws in every state. But it is the responsibility (and reasonably so) of the individual to know the gun laws (especially as it relates to carrying) of the state(s) YOU ARE TRAVELING IN. When I plan a trip, one of the first things I do is look up the basic carry laws of every state I will visit or travel through. Thereís a wealth of information and it doesn't take long.

I truly feel sorry for this woman, and like most here, I think these laws are abhorrent and I hope she gets off easy. However, she broke the law and there are repercussions to that. Maybe by seeing the unintended consequences, this will be the catalyst for the people of NJ to realize how harmful their gun laws are.

Midwest
July 17, 2014, 09:55 AM
I cannot believe this will actually make it to trial. I assume charges are being pressed simply because she has not copped to a bogus misdemeanor as a jail-free alternative. If she is smart, she'll get an NRA-ILA lawyer to dispute the nature of the charges themselves as opposed to the specifics of the incident in question, for once (by which I mean "yes, I broke the law; but the law is stupid and illegal" instead of "no, I did not break the law, because...")

She has Evan Nappen as her lawyer. He is the best gun lawyer who is well versed on New Jersey's gun laws. Perhaps he will use this case to put the New Jersey's gun laws 'on trial' as well.

I relayed the info about "United States v. Cruikshank " (to the NJ gun forum) in regards to earlier challenges to the archaic 1966 Firearms ID law in "Burton vs. Sills". Since "United States v. Cruikshank " is no longer precedent , but "McDonald v. Chicago" now is.

The original reason for upholding the 1966 FID law (and perhaps earlier gun related legislation) was "United States v. Cruikshank ". Since it is no longer precedent. The 1966 FID law needs to be challenged on that basis. And it might help the lady with her case.

The prosecutor has two choices PTI or 3 years in prison. There is no other provisions in NJ. Since the prosecutor didn't offer her PTI, she faces three years in prison.

There is always an outside chance that instead of 'putting NJ gun laws in the spotlight' as this gains national attention. The prosecutor could just drop the charges on the advice of higher ups in order to preserve New Jersey's draconian and very questionable gun laws.


.

CoalTrain49
July 17, 2014, 10:36 AM
I think this comes down to state's rights (NJ) to have different gun control laws than PA or any other state for that matter. The prosecutor doesn't care what the GC laws are in PA and he doesn't care who the person is who was arrested unless it was a some high ranking official that might cause him to lose his job.

In a case like this I think that people forget that no matter how onerous they think the law is, the good people of NJ elected the legislators that passed those laws. Unless those laws can be shown to run afoul of 2A like McDonald v Chicago then she has to take her lumps like everyone else. She could do the 3 years and that case probably still wouldn't reach the SC. The attorney should make this a civil liberties case and put the states insane GC laws center stage. She sure looks like a victim of discriminatory gun control to me. A good civil rights attorney could sway a jury here. As an aside, I think that would be an excellent reason to enact a nat'l CCP law.

Although I think it is unfortunate that someone should have to navigate the maze of GC laws, especially in places like the NE, the fact remains that those are the laws and people who live or travel there should know what they are. I don't live there and that's one of the reasons I don't. I feel like those laws run against my right to self defense.

Good luck Shaneen.

MachIVshooter
July 17, 2014, 10:55 AM
Unless those laws can be shown to run afoul of 2A like McDonald v Chicago then she has to take her lumps like everyone else.

I think it would be easier to show that they run afoul of 8A. 3 years imprisonment for mere possession of a bullet type that is perfectly legal in her home state and the other 48 states seems more than a little excessive. Unless NJ is willing to put up large signs at every single point of entry into the state that detail the extremely harsh punishment for such petty offenses, the practice should not be tolerated.

Put it this way; how many of our members are aware that California has much stricter requirements for emission equipment on motor vehicles? Of course, they cannot punish people for driving federally emissioned vehicles in CA, but suppose they could? Suppose you were driving around lake Tahoe in your NV registered car, and a CA patrolman pulled you over, then opened your hood, saw that your vehicle is only 49 state compliant, arrested you and you now face 3 years imprisonment for simply having a vehicle that is perfectly legal to operate in the other 49 states, including your own.

As long as states have open borders, there needs to be uniformity and/or exemptions for non-residents to a certain degree. That was the purpose of preemption here in CO (and many other states). I strongly believe in states rights, but it gets a little more complicated when talking traveling residents of other states, since all borders are completely open. Anyone here ever seen a marquis detailing certain state regulations that are atypical when crossing the border? I haven't, and I've been through 33 states by car.

wally
July 17, 2014, 11:07 AM
If you haven't driven in the hell hole called New Jersey, you have no friggin' clue what a mess it is. Once you get on some of the roads, it's impossible to get off for a while. I suspect that was what the illegal change thing was about.

Bingo! Been there done that, was polite to the officer, explained/complained about the poor road signs that was about to get me hopelessly lost in the middle of the night. Didn't mention anything else and got off with a warning, no searches or hassles, and he explained how to get back on the right road.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a nat'l concealed carry permit but that is unrealistic given that many people don't want anymore fed. GC laws.
Don't need more fed laws, just need the feds to force the states to accept other states permits the way they are forcing gay marriage.

Anyone here ever seen a marquis detailing certain state regulations that are atypical when crossing the border?
"Use of radar detectors is illeagal in Virgina" at the Tennessee state line comes to mind.

Jungo2
July 17, 2014, 11:13 AM
I live in SE PA and would never enter NJ with a firearm for any reason. When I was first issued my LTCF, I familiarized myself with the laws of adjacent states and unfortunately, those states are NJ, DE and MD. Apparently, this young woman had just received her permit only a week prior and obviously wasn't aware of New Jersey's very restrictive gun laws. While I agree that this is a travesty of justice, in the eyes of the law, ignorance is no excuse.

I wish this young mother and her family all the best in her defense of these charges and would love to somehow see her acquitted.

SleazyRider
July 17, 2014, 11:18 AM
The challenge now will be to keep this thread active and on topic, so it remains a clearinghouse of information regarding this very compelling case.

JColdIron
July 17, 2014, 11:34 AM
I've driven through that area and it is a mess. I could see her taking a wrong turn from Philly and ending up there. Not a lot of signage.

That said I think that States with specific restrictions on the 2nd ammd should have to list them at the border like they do withlights on when raining, No turn on Red or No Radar detectors.

If it saves one child...:D

medalguy
July 17, 2014, 12:01 PM
Letís see, New Jersey Ė Mexico. Not a whole lot of difference, is there?

Heck yes. You can get a decent taco in Mexico.

skoro
July 17, 2014, 12:07 PM
Letís see, New Jersey Ė Mexico. Not a whole lot of difference, is there?

Mexico has better beaches and MUCH better winters.

Too many police states in the northeast. I like it here in the southwest.

RustyShackelford
July 17, 2014, 12:53 PM
Post 14 isn't a answer. It's a deflection.
A mature adult would answer the questions & explain how this woman's race/gender/background make her the "perfect" case.

As stated she apparently had no clear understanding of the gun/carry laws & made bad decisions.
I stand by my statements.

MtnCreek
July 17, 2014, 01:10 PM
Her race, gender & background might garner some sympathy that the stereotypical nra redneck would not.

CoalTrain49
July 17, 2014, 01:19 PM
As long as states have open borders, there needs to be uniformity and/or exemptions for non-residents to a certain degree. That was the purpose of preemption here in CO (and many other states). I strongly believe in states rights, but it gets a little more complicated when talking traveling residents of other states, since all borders are completely open. Anyone here ever seen a marquis detailing certain state regulations that are atypical when crossing the border? I haven't, and I've been through 33 states by car.

Good point.

The states should be able to restrict their citizens all they want when it comes to gun (people) control but a person traveling through who isn't a resident of that state should not be subject to those laws. Even a person carrying a restricted weapon like an AR or a 30r mag should be exempt for a brief period, say 24 hours. Police should inform the person of the state law, their window of exemption and the fact that they are being monitored for violation of the exemption. They could even be issued a conditional citation. A ruling by the US district or supreme court could in effect provide the basis for a defense against over aggressive LEO's and prosecutors in these situations and insure that citizens who are compliant with fed law and their state laws could travel without being arrested. A lot of resources and tax dollars are being wasted by prosecution when a citation would cover it.

The problem is so bad that someone is even selling insurance to provide you with an on the spot legal defense against it.

230RN
July 17, 2014, 01:20 PM
Out of curiosity, is there an intent clause in any of the laws she's charged with breaking?

ETA: Later posts describing her route invalidated any claim as to "intent." Thanks.

Onward Allusion
July 17, 2014, 01:24 PM
H.m.B
<SNIP>As a responsible gun owner, you gotta know the rules.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you'd violated a law in the last week. ;)

Midwest
July 17, 2014, 01:29 PM
Any of us could violate the rules without realizing it.

How many here have driven to another state while armed with their carry permit and drove within 1000 feet of a school?
.

CoalTrain49
July 17, 2014, 01:49 PM
Any of us could violate the rules without realizing it.

Seen it many times by people who would be the first to obey the rules if they just knew what they were. I won't go into it at depth but try reading all of the fish and game laws of the state of WA. If there were a test 75%, including me, couldn't pass it. When I see a game warden my anal sphinter muscles tighten up. Just an example.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 17, 2014, 02:33 PM
When I first heard of this, my first thought was that this could be THE CASE to take to court. A single mother, two kids, fine upstanding citizen - I say go for it!

Woody

MagnumDweeb
July 17, 2014, 02:46 PM
Her best chance in my opinion is her day in court before a jury pleading for jury nullification. A good prosecutor will move to limit the arguments of the defense via a Motion In Limine to try and head this off.

A good candidate would be one who hasn't committed any crime and is seeking to have their rights protected (i.e. Heller in Heller v. D.C.). This woman is in for a world of hurt and I don't think it will end well for her.

I'm glad I don't live in the N.E., I'm sure New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine are great places, but they are too close to those whacko states for my tastes.

HankR
July 17, 2014, 02:48 PM
If you haven't driven in the hell hole called New Jersey, you have no friggin' clue what a mess it is. Once you get on some of the roads, it's impossible to get off for a while.

That's true of many urban areas. Of course, it obviously has nothing to do with this particular case. The lady was trying to go to Atlantic City (wait for it) New Jersey. The "mistakenly" referred to bringing her gun along, not to how she ended up in New Jersey (although one could argue that going to Jersey is always a mistake, but I do not think her defense will be based on this). Also hard to make the argument that she was "just passing through" as it's very difficult to continue a trip by automobile as one proceeds eastward from Atlantic City. For the geographically challenged, let's just say that the legendary humidity gets much worse as one crosses the "beach".

....uhhh, she didn't intend to go to Jersey.

Excellent defense, except for the fact that, well, yes, she did fully intend to go to Atlantic City, NJ (where the "J" stands for "Jersey").

(Re: the proposed "couldn't get off the interstate" scenario) ...I suspect that was what the illegal change thing was about.

That would be news to the lady in question. She is claiming she swerved because she was sleepy/tired at 1 in the morning.

I agree that she might make a good test case, but let's not let a good justification get in the way of the actual facts (or at least her version of the facts).

Double Naught Spy
July 17, 2014, 03:52 PM
Atlantic county ain't exactly on the PA border; I don't think mistakenly entered the state is accurate at all.

You bring up a good point.

When I first heard of this, my first thought was that this could be THE CASE to take to court. A single mother, two kids, fine upstanding citizen - I say go for it!

You might think so if she was actually caught driving somewhere NEAR Pennsylvania. Atlantic County is a LONG WAY away from Pennsylvania. Claims suggested above that she could not exit the interstate are just bogus. Entering the state might have been an honest mistake. Remaining in New Jersey and ending up on the other side of the state was not.

Excellent defense, except for the fact that, well, yes, she did fully intend to go to Atlantic City, NJ (where the "J" stands for "Jersey").

Okay, let's look at this. You are saying she didn't enter the state by accident? Well, by golly, you are right! Atlantic City was her destination.

She was headed to Atlantic City, N.J., in the early-morning hours to prepare for her son’s birthday party, which was being held three days later.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/17/philly-mother-hopes-for-leniency-from-new-jersey-judge-on-gun-charges/

So it was no mistake that she was in the wrong state. In fact, she apparently planned on staying in the wrong state for several days.

I think the NJ laws are terrible. However, I don't see where she should be excepted from the laws based on the information available so far. She knowingly and willingly took her gun and her hollowpoint ammo into NJ and planned to keep it in NJ for multiple days. That is a violation of the law whether she realized it or not.

Heck I have been pulled over for speeding when I didn't realize the speed I was going wasn't legal in the location where I was stopped even though I had no intent to be speeding. Does that mean I should not be given a ticket or have to pay it? Yes, Allen is facing felony charges which are more significant and I understand that, but if the rationale works at one level, it should work at all levels and it doesn't work.

BSA1
July 17, 2014, 04:07 PM
This incident, IMHO, makes a iron clad case for NOT informing a LEO that you are carrying UNLESS REQUIRED to by law.

For those that believe ignorance of the law is no excuse and she should be convicted and sent to prison consider what the following events are going to happen to this young woman;
1. All of her financial asserts will be used up paying lawyer fees ( unless pro bono).
2. She will loose custody of her children and they will be placed in supervision of the state.
3. Upon release she will have to go back to Court to regain custody of her children. The State will likely oppose it until she completes whatever programs they want to require.
4. She will be unemployable in the medical field due to her felony conviction.
5. She will not be able to find a good paying job and cost of daycare will be too expensive.
6. She will be forced in live in low income housing with welfare and food stamps.
7. Forget about her children getting a good education.
8. Forget about her need for self-defense.

These are EXACTLY the type of people the anti's want to destroy. They win by destroying this woman's future and family.

And then they wonder why so many distrust the Government and hate the Police.

Midwest
July 17, 2014, 04:15 PM
There should be a sign just before entering New Jersey that says.

"Your Gun Rights End Here"

.

BSA1
July 17, 2014, 04:21 PM
P.S. My son lives in Maryland thanks to the U.S. Army. I downloaded 8 pages of their firearm laws last night.

larryh1108
July 17, 2014, 04:48 PM
As for informing LEO you are carrying, do you need to in PA?
If yes then she did what she was taught.
If no, then she was stupid on more than one occasion.
I dont know PA law so I'm just wondering why she said anything.

officer: "ma'am, you were driving a little goofy. What's going on?"
woman: "I'm sorry officer, I'm lost and I have a gun on me."
officer: "not good. Let's take a trip to my office."

igotta40
July 17, 2014, 04:51 PM
The most important part of this story is missing in all the previous responses, the fact that she had hollow point ammunition in her possession. That is probably why she is looking at jail time.

taliv
July 17, 2014, 04:55 PM
I think this comes down to state's rights (NJ) to have different gun control laws than PA or any other state for that matter.

as a last defense, it should come down to jury nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury believe the defendant to be guilty of the charges. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

aarondhgraham
July 17, 2014, 05:19 PM
As a responsible gun owner, you gotta know the rules.

Oh, gimme a break here,,,
If we didn't hang out in a gun forum,,,
We probably wouldn't know the different rules either.

When I got back into shooting after a 17 year hiatus,,,
I had no idea that the gun laws in some states had become so draconian.

Six years ago when I started shooting again for fun and recreation,,,
I was absolutely flabbergasted at how the laws of some states had become so restrictive.

This lady may be the ultimate example of an Accidental Felon,,,
And don't any of you tell me that you go a week,,,
Without breaking a law that'd get you hung.

If you can truly state that,,,
I wonder how and where you live.

Those draconian laws were designed to aid the prosecutions of heavy criminals,,,
Not to be used to make an example out of an ordinary citizen,,,
The letter of the law provides for a heavy sentence,,,
The intent of the law should allow for leniency.

Slap her hand with a reasonable misdemeanor fine and let her go home,,,
Don't make her a prohibited felon because she got lost.

A District Attorney has a lot of discretion in these type of cases,,,
Let's hope this one isn't going after low hanging fruit,,,
Just because it's an easy score for his/her record.

Aarond

.

rhinoh
July 17, 2014, 05:33 PM
Having said that, I'm operating under the assumption that the arresting officer is a total (expletive). We're not talking about a car load of misfits here; unless she said or did something to provoke him, any cop with a conscience would have informed her of the law, had her lock the gun away in the trunk and confiscated/disposed of the ammunition. One day, he'll get his.

A LEO I know has told me a lot of their discretion was removed when traffic stops started being videotaped. Stuff he could overlook before is now on record and he had to make an arrest in some cases so HE didn't get in trouble....

Unfortunately it appears she volunteered information without being asked. What is always being promoted here? Don't talk to the cops!

ConstitutionCowboy
July 17, 2014, 05:36 PM
When I first heard of this, my first thought was that this could be THE CASE to take to court. A single mother, two kids, fine upstanding citizen - I say go for it!

You might think so if she was actually caught driving somewhere NEAR Pennsylvania. Atlantic County is a LONG WAY away from Pennsylvania. Claims suggested above that she could not exit the interstate are just bogus. Entering the state might have been an honest mistake. Remaining in New Jersey and ending up on the other side of the state was not.


Being near Pennsylvania has nothing to do with it, and neither does having made a 'wrong turn' or wether or not she had lace on her underware. It is about the anti-gun-rights laws in New Jersey. The suit needs to be brought up against those laws. She is being wrongfully harmed by unconstitutional laws.

Woody

H.m.B
July 17, 2014, 05:41 PM
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you'd violated a law in the last week. ;)

I highly doubt it. However, even if true, I still stand on my statement that as a responsible gun owner, you gotta know the rules. Especially if you're going to carry!

DeadMoneyDrew
July 17, 2014, 06:11 PM
Atlantic county ain't exactly on the PA border; I don't think mistakenly entered the state is accurate at all.


Indeed there seems to be something off about the reporting. Atlantic County is a good half hour drive from Philly.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/anerney/online/2014-07-17_18-04-48_zpsd689b5c7.jpg

That said, it is quite easy to enter NJ unintentionally from the Philly area despite that giant sludge puddle known as the Delaware River that flows between NJ and PA. On several occasions I have found myself driving into NJ by accident, thanks to Philly's convoluted bridge and interchange system.

Couple that with the fact that no one in their right mind ever goes to NJ voluntarily :D and the idea that this woman was in NJ unintentionally is at least plausible, if not probable.


EDIT: never mind, I see from another article that she was in fact fully aware that she was in NJ

CoalTrain49
July 17, 2014, 06:13 PM
Heck I have been pulled over for speeding when I didn't realize the speed I was going wasn't legal in the location where I was stopped even though I had no intent to be speeding. Does that mean I should not be given a ticket or have to pay it?

I would have to say that's a pretty poor comparison. The speed limit is posted, or should be, GC laws aren't. I was issued a warning one time when I was speeding because 1) My residence was in a different county with different laws and 2) the speed limit was not posted where I entered onto the county road from the freeway. I made that point an the LEO said he was aware of it and that the speed limit was 35. Now you know, have a good day.

BLB68
July 17, 2014, 06:33 PM
This quote is from the Fox news article posted up thead:

Despite a lack of a criminal record, Nappen said Allen was not accepted into a diversionary program that would allow her to avoid jail time altogether. They both are hoping that a judge will see the matter in a different light.

This may be her best chance to avoid further jail time.

Jury nullification may not be an option. In many states, attorneys aren't allowed to mention the option to jurors, which means most jurors will have no idea the option even exists.

A constitutional challenge will likely take so long that she'll be out of jail anyway, so at best she could get the verdict overturned and her record cleaned up, but damage would be done. It's also very much a long shot.

Double Naught Spy
July 17, 2014, 09:43 PM
Being near Pennsylvania has nothing to do with it, and neither does having made a 'wrong turn' or wether or not she had lace on her underware. It is about the anti-gun-rights laws in New Jersey. The suit needs to be brought up against those laws. She is being wrongfully harmed by unconstitutional laws.

Well, that could be said for any related gun issue in NJ, but that hasn't happened yet. HOWEVER, the issue of proximity does have something to do with the lawyer's claims that she entered the state unintentionally.

However, since you mentioned the lace panties angle, the fact that she is a black, single mom with a good job from a bad neighborhood has nothing to do with the Constitutional issue either, as implied by the OP.

I would have to say that's a pretty poor comparison. The speed limit is posted, or should be, GC laws aren't.

Doesn't really matter. Few laws are posted. We are still responsible to abide by them.

I find it hard to believe that in getting her permit in Philly and going through a gun course that she had no knowledge that NJ was gun unfriendly.

While it is noted that she had only had the gun for a week, the offense being Oct 1, 2013, she had her carry permit since April 24, 2012.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/njs-racist-sexist-gun-control-claims-yet-another-victim/#axzz37mQ4rlEH

RustyShackelford
July 17, 2014, 09:58 PM
I don't think NJ enforcement of their laws or statues is "draconian" :rolleyes: .
If you apply for a gun permit or CCW, it's your responsibility or requirement to learn the SOPs & laws.
In many places it goes like this;
public safety office employee/regulatory agency staff: Okay, here's your new CCW/gun license. Here's a free safety lock & a hand-out with all the important state gun laws/carry requirements.
New gun owner/license holder; uh-huh, yeah, whatever, ok. :uhoh:

My state does not require LE notice of concealed guns/weapons. I decided I would explain that I was armed or had a CC weapon when a sworn LE officer asks me directly if there is anything in the motor vehicle he needs to know about or if he/she asks me for my ID/vehicle reg/insurance. When I hand them my CCW license card, I'll then say I have my firearm too.
That way they don't get startled & it's clear I'm not a felon or aggressive.
Massad Ayoob does a great training video on this topic(how to handle traffic stops).

Sniper66
July 17, 2014, 11:43 PM
This case is precisely why I do not carry guns in my car unless I am very sure what the laws allow from state to state. Sadly, when I'm on the road driving through several states, it is less risky to leave my gun at home than risk running into an antigun cop. I'm more afraid of antigun cops than I am of the other potential hazards of multistage travel.

Sniper66
July 17, 2014, 11:44 PM
I meant multi-state travel.

Field Tester
July 18, 2014, 03:46 AM
I don't think NJ enforcement of their laws or statues is "draconian" :rolleyes: .
If you apply for a gun permit or CCW, it's your responsibility or requirement to learn the SOPs & laws.
In many places it goes like this;
public safety office employee/regulatory agency staff: Okay, here's your new CCW/gun license. Here's a free safety lock & a hand-out with all the important state gun laws/carry requirements.
New gun owner/license holder; uh-huh, yeah, whatever, ok. :uhoh:

My state does not require LE notice of concealed guns/weapons. I decided I would explain that I was armed or had a CC weapon when a sworn LE officer asks me directly if there is anything in the motor vehicle he needs to know about or if he/she asks me for my ID/vehicle reg/insurance. When I hand them my CCW license card, I'll then say I have my firearm too.
That way they don't get startled & it's clear I'm not a felon or aggressive.
Massad Ayoob does a great training video on this topic(how to handle traffic stops).
Wow Rusty, I think this is the first time I've ever disagreed with something you've written. I don't think previous posters are saying that the enforcement of the law is Draconian, but rather the law itself.

I disagree with both though. I feel even enforcing a law like this (or even creating it in the first place) completely violates the 8th Amendment.
The punishment certainly does not fit the crime.

But as always, I appreciate your view.

JohnBT
July 18, 2014, 08:40 AM
The NJ law isn't draconian. Draco's laws in the Draconic Code were harsh in the extreme.

"The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offences, such as "stealing a cabbage"."

Solon repealed the Draconic Code in the 6th Century B.C. He did keep the death penalty for murder.

I think the word draconian has been overused and the meaning watered down over the years.

fwiw :)

John

NoVA Shooter
July 18, 2014, 08:53 AM
Oh, gimme a break here,,,
If we didn't hang out in a gun forum,,,
We probably wouldn't know the different rules either.

Speak for yourself. I'm not saying I know all the rules but I do my due diligence because I'm a responsible person, not because hang out in a gun forum.
I don't hang out in car forums but I know the rules of the road.


When I got back into shooting after a 17 year hiatus,,,
I had no idea that the gun laws in some states had become so draconian.

Six years ago when I started shooting again for fun and recreation,,,
I was absolutely flabbergasted at how the laws of some states had become so restrictive.


Right, but it sounds like you took personal responsibility to re-educate yourself, not just take it on a whim that everything was the same.


This lady may be the ultimate example of an Accidental Felon,,,
And don't any of you tell me that you go a week,,,
Without breaking a law that'd get you hung.

If you can truly state that,,,
I wonder how and where you live.


Maybe, but carrying a gun is (unfortunately) a highly regulated activity. As such, anyone who does it should know that extra precautions need to be taken (e.g. spend a little effort to know the laws).


Those draconian laws were designed to aid the prosecutions of heavy criminals,,,
Not to be used to make an example out of an ordinary citizen,,,
The letter of the law provides for a heavy sentence,,,
The intent of the law should allow for leniency.

Slap her hand with a reasonable misdemeanor fine and let her go home,,,
Don't make her a prohibited felon because she got lost.

A District Attorney has a lot of discretion in these type of cases,,,
Let's hope this one isn't going after low hanging fruit,,,
Just because it's an easy score for his/her record.


100% agree. She did break the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. As a just society, considerations should be made.

NoVA Shooter
July 18, 2014, 09:05 AM
The NJ law isn't draconian. Draco's laws in the Draconic Code were harsh in the extreme.

"The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offences, such as "stealing a cabbage"."

Solon repealed the Draconic Code in the 6th Century B.C. He did keep the death penalty for murder.

I think the word draconian has been overused and the meaning watered down over the years.

fwiw :)

John

IMO, "harsh in the extreme" is all relative to the current state of a society. You don't think that years in jail and $1000's in fines is harsh in the extreme for simply carrying a gun (mind you, a gun that she is licensed to carry in 28 other states)?

Sam1911
July 18, 2014, 09:14 AM
As for informing LEO you are carrying, do you need to in PA?
No.

There is also no training requirement (or offered official course) in PA law. And certainly not a course in the laws of NJ.

Hmmm... a single lady with kids traveling to Atlantic City in the wee hours of the morning? She SHOULD be carrying a gun! Who in the world would feel safe NOT carrying under those conditions?

The law doesn't allow it... ok, there's that. The law is anathema, though.

We all have a responsibility to know the laws (and abide as best we can) but I hope she gets off free and clear. The lawyers fees and trouble will be more punishment than any person should have to bear.

Hugo
July 18, 2014, 09:21 AM
Let's hope this influences NJ lawmakers, Governor, DA, and others to finally reform the unjustly harsh and frankly insane firearm laws in NJ. Like removing the insane Hollowpoint ban for civilians that makes things more dangerous from overpenetration. And make NJ realize the world doesn't revolve around it and recognize other states CCL licenses. And maybe go Shall-issue for the law abiding citizens. Probably more areas to fix too. What year is it NJ? Shame the heck out of NJ until they reform this.

Good luck to Shaneen Allen and her family. I hope her lawyer helps her make NJ look like the incompetent government they are until they drop these foolish charges against her.

Midwest
July 18, 2014, 09:32 AM
What year is it NJ? Shame the heck out of NJ until they reform this.

New Jersey is a backwards state when it comes to rights and freedoms. They have had weak self defense laws for decades. "Ceasefire NJ" actually has some clout in that state, the person running it is a minister of some sort.

What year is it in NJ? Probably the early 1980's at the height of Hand Gun Control. New Jersey is that far behind the rest of the states.

.

JohnBT
July 18, 2014, 09:50 AM
"You don't think that years in jail and $1000's in fines is harsh in the extreme for simply carrying a gun"

It's harsh, but it's not extreme and it's not draconian. Extreme would be having a hand chopped off, being sold into slavery or getting a death sentence.

CoalTrain49
July 18, 2014, 10:19 AM
Doesn't really matter. Few laws are posted. We are still responsible to abide by them.

Well, yes it does matter. I was party to a lawsuit where the county paid out a 3m claim to an injured motorist who hit a tree. The judgement was based on the fact that the county failed to post the speed limit on the road which was required by the counties own traffic control ordinance.

I know this sounds ridiculous but that's what happened.

BSA1
July 18, 2014, 10:29 AM
The NJ law isn't draconian. Draco's laws in the Draconic Code were harsh in the extreme.

"The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offences, such as "stealing a cabbage"."

Solon repealed the Draconic Code in the 6th Century B.C. He did keep the death penalty for murder.

I think the word draconian has been overused and the meaning watered down over the years.


Not draconian you say. If convicted she will;

1. Use of all assets for legal defense
2. Imprisonment for three years
3. Loss of custody of her children to the State
4. Loss of being employed in the medical field due to her conviction
5. Fines
6. Permission of the State to gain custody of her children
7. Permanent loss of her 2A rights
8. Greatly diminished ability to defend herself against future attacks. (She has been attacked twice previously).
9. Unable to find employment with good fringe benefits and good enough to pay for childcare.
10. Unable to afford good education for her children forcing them into public reeducation schools.
11. Dependency on welfare and food stamps and other Government Programs.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 18, 2014, 10:31 AM
However, since you mentioned the lace panties angle, the fact that she is a black, single mom with a good job from a bad neighborhood has nothing to do with the Constitutional issue either, as implied by the OP.

That's correct. That's why I brought up the constitutional issue as what I perceive to be her only defense - and the opportunity to free up the residents of New Jersey as well. (It's always nice to have a hidden ulterior motive in these cases! :) )

Woody

JohnBT
July 18, 2014, 01:54 PM
"Not draconian you say."

Harsh, but not draconian. Draco, were he alive still, would likely believe your list of punishments to be a slap on the wrist.

twofifty
July 18, 2014, 05:52 PM
Not draconian you say. If convicted she will;

1. Use of all assets for legal defense
2. Imprisonment for three years
3. Loss of custody of her children to the State
4. Loss of being employed in the medical field due to her conviction
5. Fines
6. Permission of the State to gain custody of her children
7. Permanent loss of her 2A rights
8. Greatly diminished ability to defend herself against future attacks. (She has been attacked twice previously).
9. Unable to find employment with good fringe benefits and good enough to pay for childcare.
10. Unable to afford good education for her children forcing them into public reeducation schools.
11. Dependency on welfare and food stamps and other Government Programs.
I've extracted a few of the consequences of a draconian outcome to illustrate that sometimes it is better for the State to be lenient than to create the stimulus conditions for greater and much more expensive outcomes 10 years down the road - when the kids enter their teen years.

Items 3, 4, 9,10 and 11 would statistically lead to the mother going on welfare upon leaving prison. Meanwhile the kids would have learned some harsh lessons about white justice toward disadvantaged blacks, and may well choose to act out on the basis of those lessons.

Up till now, these kids were well on their way to join the growing and successful black middle class.

NJ should look down the road a bit before punishing this family for a victimless crime.

RustyShackelford
July 19, 2014, 01:07 AM
My point about the New Jersey laws & post 57 is that if a state's residents or registered voters don't support a bill/law/ordinance then it's shouldn't pass.
Gun owners & 2A supporters need to rally & support pro 2A laws/statues.
Not voting or saying; "so what" or "I don't care." isn't going to cut it. :mad:

When your gun rights & hunting/CC ability is threatened it's too late to get upset.

CoalTrain49
July 19, 2014, 09:59 AM
My point about the New Jersey laws & post 57 is that if a state's residents or registered voters don't support a bill/law/ordinance then it's shouldn't pass.
Gun owners & 2A supporters need to rally & support pro 2A laws/statues.
Not voting or saying; "so what" or "I don't care." isn't going to cut it.

That's a big problem here in this country. Too many people just assume they will always have the freedoms and rights they have now. I think Shaneen made the mistake of assuming that because she had permit in PA. it was good in NJ. She is a young, new permit holder and I can see how she might assume that. I'm not making excuses for her but I understand how it could happen. How many people are now trying to get a CC permit and finding out it is next to impossible because of some bureaucratic process or onerous LE agency. Or in her case, it's only good until you cross the river a few miles from your house.

And as you say the only way to make sure we don't slide off into the abyss is to pay attention to this stuff and vote.

Fleetman
July 19, 2014, 11:07 AM
I live in Pa and mistakenly entered Maryland once....there was absolutely no place to turn around for about 3 miles. It happens more easily than some people realize.

BSA1
July 19, 2014, 03:05 PM
"Not draconian you say."

Harsh, but not draconian. Draco, were he alive still, would likely believe your list of punishments to be a slap on the wrist.


Well it seems we have different values on our liberty. I’ll hang with this bunch of old guys that felt so strongly they wrote;

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

It seems I cherish my Liberty more than you. I can live a full life with the loss of a hand. I can not begin to image to live my life in a country that strips me of my 2A right and takes away my freedom.

wally
July 19, 2014, 11:07 PM
Too bad she's not an NFL star, three felonies would magically turn into misdemeanors.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=757162

RustyShackelford
July 19, 2014, 11:17 PM
+1 for post 71's remarks.
The hue & cry over anti-gun laws or anti 2A bills/statues/ordinances will go on all over the USA if gun owners/2A supporters do not vote, support pro gun groups, etc.
I'm not saying you have to march in front of city hall or your state capital building with signs or a M4/rifle slung over your shoulder but you can be vocal with your local elected officials or govt.
Felons & convicts don't vote. :uhoh:
Anti gun political figures can't stay in office if the gun owners/CCW holders/hunters vote more than the other citizens who are apathetic or uninformed.

wally
July 20, 2014, 10:56 AM
Felons & convicts don't vote

Not if the Democrats get their way!


11. Dependency on welfare and food stamps and other Government Programs.
The real anti-freedom agenda!

MICHAEL T
July 21, 2014, 11:32 PM
Where's Holder at? I mean he let Blk Panthers walk .Surely he could get her freedom . Just a phone call to gov .I mean Christy is a pal of Obama .

LubeckTech
August 5, 2014, 12:03 PM
Where is Chris Christy in all of this?

We all know he is a perfect example of a RINO and NO friend to gun owners but he wants us to think he is our friend because he wants to be president.
I have a question for him.
From a purely economic stand point.
Why would I even remotely consider voting for a presidential candidate who as govenor would permit his state to spend at least $150,000 PLUS the costs of trial and costs to put her children in foster care?? If convicted this would cost the state of NJ abear minimum of $200,000 for NO GOOD REASON. Nothing would be served, the people would be no safer but they would be poorer in more ways than one. I know he can't dismiss the charges himself but there is no doubt in my mind he could persuade the local prosecutor. to drop them with a phone call. He could commute her sentence once conviceted but I think he could make more "political hay" getting involved before to goes to trial.

twofifty
August 5, 2014, 12:21 PM
Let's not leave out the higher future costs to society and to the state for dealing with the kids/teens once they start acting out on the anger triggered by their mother being taken from them.

That would be 3 lives wasted, all for some stupid paper crime that isn't a crime right next door.

LubeckTech
August 5, 2014, 12:35 PM
She WILL end up in a welfare program and that is an another ton of money altogether.
Prosecuting this lady goes WAY beyond stupid and I would certainly think a man in a position of power wanting to be president would be cashing in so to speak on this but that just goes to prove what an idiot he is.

SleazyRider
August 5, 2014, 01:13 PM
Hold on a second!

Are you suggesting that justice for me---a male, unemployed, white carpenter who has no dependents---should be different? Has justice been reduced to a matter of economics?

NoVA Shooter
August 5, 2014, 02:19 PM
Hold on a second!

Are you suggesting that justice for me---a male, unemployed, white carpenter who has no dependents---should be different? Has justice been reduced to a matter of economics?

+1

In our fervor to condemn a bad law and point out the unintended consequences, we cannot forget we live under the rule of law and for our society to work, all laws need to be applied to all people. She broke the law and must pay the consequences. It is a shame that the punishment does not fit the crime and even more so because her actions shouldn't amount to a crime in the first place, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. The proper action by the governor and/or local representation in NJ would be to remove the law, or at the very least, amend it so that what happened in this circumstance is not a felony; this way, it can be applied fairly to everyone. Sadly, she may get the short end of the stick, but for the rest of us, maybe this will be the catalyst for some good change.

LubeckTech
August 5, 2014, 02:45 PM
The problem is that bankrupting the state for no good purpose is not justice. The lady DID break the law and as a concealed carry premit holder it was certainly her responsibility to know this so there should be a conquence. Three years in prison for her or anyone under these circumstances is not reasonable. If the circumstances were different it could be reasonable. For instance were a crime, assault or threat of voilence in play in this instance then by all means 3 years is appropriate. In this instance an appropriate concequence would be to confenscate her gun and ammo and issue a traffic citation. In most juristictions the prosecuting attorney decides which cases to persue and considering the severity or lack there of in this situation the prosecutor should have exercised discretion.

BSA1
August 5, 2014, 03:22 PM
SleazyRider & NoVA Shooter,

Crime and punishment in America is very big business. It creates jobs and revenue for thousands of Federal, State and Local Governments, thousands of private businesses and millions of their employees.

The reality is you will be treated differently which is not necessarily a bad thing.

NoVA Shooter
August 5, 2014, 03:38 PM
In this instance an appropriate concequence would be to confenscate her gun and ammo and issue a traffic citation. In most juristictions the prosecuting attorney decides which cases to persue and considering the severity or lack there of in this situation the prosecutor should have exercised discretion.

Agreed, if the law allows for that type discretion. If not, this case should bring to light the need for a change. If I were ever in a circumstance where legal action was being taken against me, I wouldn't want the application of the law to be based off of my social/economic status in society. I don't think I'd make a very sympathetic 'criminal'. :)

NoVA Shooter
August 5, 2014, 03:49 PM
SleazyRider & NoVA Shooter,

Crime and punishment in America is very big business. It creates jobs and revenue for thousands of Federal, State and Local Governments, thousands of private businesses and millions of their employees.

True, but that doesn't mean justice can't still be impartial.


The reality is you will be treated differently which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sure, it may be a good thing if you're a sympathetic offender. But if we simply apply the law differently to some under certain conditions, the the law never changes and one day, someone who is just as deserving of leniency gets the book thrown at them simply because they aren't employed, <insert gender>, <insert race>, with dependents.

RustyShackelford
August 5, 2014, 05:50 PM
What irks me in the modern era(driven mainly by 24/07 news cycles & the internet) is how some armed citizens or license holders get no charges or civil actions but others with different ages/races/genders/$ status/etc who do the same thing do get charged or convicted. :mad:
The US criminal justice system is not fair. It's designed to churn defendants(citizens) thru as quickly as possible. Those with the $$$ or resources can get reduced sentences or fines. Poorer citizens or those less educated are thrown into the vat & must fend for themselves. :rolleyes:
I had a legal issue in 2012. It was resolved & I was cleared but my personal relationship with the local state atty(an elected official) helped greatly.
Not every citizen gets those types of breaks.
The PA woman made mistakes but she's not a bad person. There are far worse offenders/fugitives the LE and/or prosecutors can go after than her.

DeadMoneyDrew
August 6, 2014, 09:41 AM
Looks like she rejected a plea deal. I wish this lady the best.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140806_Philly_mom_will_stand_trial_for_bringing_gun_to_N_J_.html

LubeckTech
August 6, 2014, 10:22 AM
Is there anyway to find out what the deal was which she declined?

This case is not about justice but about harassment pure and simple.

DeadMoneyDrew
August 6, 2014, 10:46 AM
According to that PI article, the plea deal was for 3 1/2 years.

MAYS LANDING, N.J. - The words common sense were mentioned quite a bit during Shaneen Allen's hearing yesterday in Atlantic County Superior Court.

Allen, 27, cried for a moment in the hallway with her son Naiare and his father after a judge denied her motion to dismiss weapons charges filed against her in October and refused to overturn a prosecutor's decision to deny her entry into a first-time-offender diversion program.

So Allen walked back into court, turned down a plea deal that would have given her a 3 1/2-year sentence and decided to go to trial in October, hoping a jury would use some common sense and not send a working mother of two to prison for not knowing New Jersey's gun laws.

Tom488
August 6, 2014, 11:32 AM
The "plea deal" was no deal.... it was, "plead guilty to the second-degree offense of unlawful possession of a handgun, and we'll dismiss the 4th degree charge of unlawful possession of hollow-nose bullets. You'll receive a 7 year sentence on the handgun possession, of which the Graves Act requires a minimum 50% term served before parole. You'll then be eligible for parole in 3.5 years".

The only way she could do worse at trial, is if she is convicted on both counts (and, aside from jury nullification, she will be - she's clearly guilty of the charges), and issued consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. Or, if she is sentenced to the maximum amount of time on the 2nd degree charge - 10 years. Both scenarios are HIGHLY unlikely.

So she really turned down nothing. The big loss in her most recent hearing was again failing to convince "the machine" to allow her into the PTI program - which is exactly what SHOULD have been done in this case.

Willie Sutton
August 6, 2014, 12:06 PM
PTI has *often* been offered to others in NJ who have faced the same charges.

To not do so in this case is a missuse of discretion. She's a poster child for someone who should be entered into this program.


Willie

.

HankR
August 6, 2014, 12:08 PM
The US criminal justice system is not fair.

Rusty, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, as noted above and this lady is feeling the brunt of it. I agree with Tom that, barring nullification, she will be found guilty. I further agree with the topic of this thread, that she would probably be a good case to appeal in an attempt to overturn some of Jersey's more ridiculous laws. I wish her luck, and will contribute if SAF takes up the cause, but I'm glad I won't be the one in jail awaiting the appeals process if it comes to that.

Double Naught Spy
August 6, 2014, 04:46 PM
Rusty, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, as noted above and this lady is feeling the brunt of it.

Yep, there are consequences for our actions. Just because the legal system can cut somebody a break does not mean that it will or should cut somebody a break. That isn't unfair or unjust. It may suck, but it isn't outside of the law.

Willie Sutton
August 7, 2014, 08:58 AM
Where is Chris Christy in all of this?

Exactly where he belongs, which is "not involved". Remeber the branches of Government part of your civics classes? (probably not). Here's a reminder: The executive branch of government (both state and federal) does not intervene with the running of the judiciary branch. Post conviction the Governer can sign pardons, but pre-conviction? He has no power to do a thing. When the Legislative Branch brings forth a bill regarding this, and the Executive Branch signs it into law, the Judiciary Branch will change what it does. Where in this triad do you think Christie sits? Hint: Not as the King of a Realm... ;)


No, you can blame the NJ State Legislature (past and present) for this one.



Willie

.

HankR
August 7, 2014, 09:51 AM
Exactly where he belongs, which is "not involved".

As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter. Even to the point of asking him if he would pardon the lady if she were to be convicted. Inquiring minds want to know. Although we know that Christy is soft on this issue, he doesn't know that we know that. I think he should be asked his opinion, both by the press and by us via a flood of letters, of laws that can put somebody in jail for 10 years for something that is probably rattling around under the seat of my truck right now.

No, you can blame the NJ State Legislature (past and present) for this one.

Not sure how it works in Jersey, but in my state the governor has to sign these laws into being. Questions to include above include whether or not Christy would sign such a law today, whether he would support repeal of such laws, and whether he would support/lobby for/sign such ridiculous laws at the national level he were elected to the presidency.

Midwest
August 7, 2014, 02:18 PM
As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter. Even to the point of asking him if he would pardon the lady if she were to be convicted. Inquiring minds want to know. Although we know that Christy is soft on this issue, he doesn't know that we know that. I think he should be asked his opinion, both by the press and by us via a flood of letters, of laws that can put somebody in jail for 10 years for something that is probably rattling around under the seat of my truck right now.



Not sure how it works in Jersey, but in my state the governor has to sign these laws into being. Questions to include above include whether or not Christy would sign such a law today, whether he would support repeal of such laws, and whether he would support/lobby for/sign such ridiculous laws at the national level he were elected to the presidency.
I believe this story will put the spotlight on Gov. Christie at some point if it hasn't already. Some reporter will eventually ask him about this case and ask about his real views on gun control to the rest of the country.

Eventually Christie will have to answer. He just can't 'sit on the fence' or blow it off by saying "New Jersey is Special" or that this is a special case. That won't play to the rest of the country especially if he wants to make a bid for President or be considered for an important cabinet post in an possible Republican administration in the future.

The lady's attorney, Evan Nappen (famous Pro-gun lawyer in NJ) could make quite a few media appearances over this case and put a huge spotlight on New Jersey's ugly, draconian, arcane and backward gun laws even further. Maybe then maybe the NRA, GOA and other organizations will finally start paying attention to NJ.

I'd like to believe that something good will come out this case. Yes I would have hoped that the lady would have received PTI and that she would not be facing 3+ years in the slammer. Yet if she did get PTI and the case was 'settled' . Unfortunately we still would be having this same conversation again a few months down the road in yet another case.

I am hopeful that maybe something good could come out of this in some way. The national spotlight is on Christie, the national spotlight is on NJ politics, the national spotlight is on NJ's draconian gun laws and maybe that could help spark change with this case. And Lord knows, NJ gun owners need all the help they can get!
.

BSA1
August 7, 2014, 05:01 PM
For the members of THR that believe the law should or need to be applied equally to all persons this is a textbook case (Post 82). This is a perfect case of mandatory sentencing being applied regardless of the long term cost of destroying this woman's future, her family and the burden it is going to place on society for the rest of her life and maybe even her chdren as they grow up on welfare.

But for all of THR members that have already convicted her, hold that not knowing the law in a State she doesn't live in as a lack of responsibility and believe she should be punished consider this. This law is not applied equally to all accused. N.J. Has a diversion program with a citizen with no criminal history is not eligible for.

SleazyRider in Post 82 asks if it is a "matter of economics." My response is why not? What did her alledged crimes cost society? The traffic violation did not appear to place anyone in danger, harm anyone or cause any property damage. Her alleged gun violation certainly did not create any danger, harm or property damage.

She is being tried for mere possession of a item that Government does not approve of. Nothing more, nothing less. For the Liberal Agenda to succeed folks like her have to have their lives destroyed and they must be forced to become on the Government for their needs.

Remember it is very possible that these same laws can (and probably will) someday be used against you.

Double Naught Spy
August 7, 2014, 06:16 PM
This is a perfect case of mandatory sentencing being applied regardless of the long term cost of destroying this woman's future, her family and the burden it is going to place on society for the rest of her life and maybe even her chdren as they grow up on welfare.

Yes, those are some of the negative consequences of being convicted of breaking such laws.

She is being tried for mere possession of a item that Government does not approve of. Nothing more, nothing less.

To which she admitted to possessing and for which there are certain penalties in place and have been for many years. Where has the fight been to change these laws for all of these years???

However, if you are so concerned, don't waste your time on the individual cases, you need to fight the law itself. If you spend all your resources fighting individual cases to help these people whose lives are going to be ruined, then people's lives will continue to be ruined until the law is changed.

I understand that you are personally worried about Shaneen Allen, but why not about Jose Caban Jr., Quadere Austin, Keeayre R. Griffin, Shane P. Scott, Mike Goodson, Charles Fults, Dustin Reininger, Daquan Rodriguez, David Talmadge, Raheem Jacobs, Kareem Carter, Angel Deleon, etc. etc. etc. etc. Are we fighting for each one of these unjustly accused (and some convicted) victims of these stupid laws? The laws are obviously wrong no matter what else might have been going on at the time (and for some, it was also simple traffic violations or unrelated questioning).

Remember it is very possible that these same laws can (and probably will) someday be used against you.

Scare tactics work better when you can show relevance. You failed to show relevance.

Willie Sutton
August 7, 2014, 09:04 PM
As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter.


And it would be unethical interferance with the judiciary branch for him to do so.

Look at it this way, would you like Obama to be able to interfere openly and publically and to comment on cases not yet brought to trial at the federal level stating that he would pardon the person after conviction in advance of a conviction? You would HOWL with outrage.

Yet you expect the exact same thing from Christie when the case is one that *you* think is deserving of special treatment?

I don't think that's going to happen ....



Willie

.

BSA1
August 7, 2014, 10:07 PM
Double Naught Spy,

In Kansas there has been a 180 degree turn around in the gun laws. We now have very pro-gun laws on the State and local level (which makes the Liberals on the local level angry since they can't pass gun bans).

Frankly I consider having to get a purchase permit from the State, having to registered your firearms with their serial numbers with the Government and having restrictions when you can even transport your gun like N.J. as unconstitutional. Why the citizens put up with it is beyond me.

As for the people you named what about them?

You sound like a stand up type of guy. You go to work, try raise your children right and trust the Government. You probably believe that despite all of the complaining and scandals the Government is there to help you and has your best interests at heart.

All I can tell you is you and most Americans have no clue how disfunctional Government is. I speak with some authority as I worked in Government for over two decades.

I make no secret that I distrust the Federal Government but I'm not alone in my belief. edited; just 13% of Americans believe the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, three-quarters say only some of the time and 1in 10 saying they never trust the government. I guess I'm not radical at all.


One only has to study Socialism to gain a understanding of how strict gun laws can (and probably will) be used against citizens.

Double Naught Spy
August 8, 2014, 09:44 AM
Double Naught Spy,

In Kansas there has been a 180 degree turn around in the gun laws. We now have very pro-gun laws on the State and local level (which makes the Liberals on the local level angry since they can't pass gun bans).

This isn't about Kansas. Kansas law is not relevant to NJ law.


Frankly I consider having to get a purchase permit from the State, having to registered your firearms with their serial numbers with the Government and having restrictions when you can even transport your gun like N.J. as unconstitutional. Why the citizens put up with it is beyond me.

I believe it is beyond you.

As for the people you named what about them?

The laws are just as stupid for them, but very few folks are worried about their dispositions.

You sound like a stand up type of guy. You go to work, try raise your children right and trust the Government. You probably believe that despite all of the complaining and scandals the Government is there to help you and has your best interests at heart.

Compliments and your sentiments about my life are not relevant to the case.

All I can tell you is you and most Americans have no clue how disfunctional Government is. I speak with some authority as I worked in Government for over two decades.

How well the government functions isn't relevant to the case.

I make no secret that I distrust the Federal Government but I'm not alone in my belief. A poll that was just announced shows 30% of Americans do not trust the Government to solve our current problems.

Your trust in the government or any polls about the government are not relevant to the case.

One only has to study Socialism to gain a understanding of how strict gun laws can (and probably will) be used against citizens.

And now it comes to this, catastrophist theory.

alsaqr
August 8, 2014, 10:27 AM
Why the citizens put up with it is beyond me.

The majority of voting citizens in NJ prefer it that way.

i had job sites in NJ for years; it's the only state where i refused to take a gun: Even managed to get a concealed carry permit in MA. Any person caught carrying a handgun in NJ is in very serious trouble.

NoVA Shooter
August 8, 2014, 10:46 AM
The majority of voting citizens in NJ prefer it that way.


That's not necessarily true. Representatives don't always vote based on the majority view of their constituents. Especially when you take it to a micro level. Also, even if a majority of people voted for this law, that doesn't mean they understand the nuances, how it's applied, or even what the law does. They may have been sold on the 'cliffs notes' version of the law designed to garner the most support, and didn't realize the true scope until now. That's why this case will hopefully awaken the people of NJ to the true nature of these types of laws.

alsaqr
August 8, 2014, 12:26 PM
The results of a poll of registered NJ voters:

Three-quarters (76%) of registered voters in the Garden State favor greater restrictions on guns and ammunition.

The only proposal offered to reduce gun violence in society that garners more support is instituting more proactive mental illness measures (93%). Rounding out the list of measures with majority support is reducing the level of violence in movies and video games (61%).

Read More: NJ's Residents Want Stiffer Gun Restrictions | http://nj1015.com/nj-voters-want-crackdown-on-gun-violence-pollaudio/?trackback=tsmclip

http://nj1015.com/nj-voters-want-crackdown-on-gun-violence-pollaudio/

texasgun
August 8, 2014, 12:38 PM
"usmarine0352_2005
Member


Join Date: October 21, 2005
Posts: 2,552
I hope the people that are hard on her are just as hard as the US Marine who accidently drove into Mexico and has been in a Mexican jail for months."

accidentally drove into Mexico with a AR15, shotgun and .45 pistol in his trunk and accidentally forgot to declare that at the border crossing and accidentally oversaw the numerous warnings "dont take guns with you" on the US side of the border..... yeah.... because that's the same

BSA1
August 8, 2014, 06:42 PM
Double Naught Spy,

Your comments are well taken. I am just somewhat amazed in the vast differences in attitudes and laws between Eastern States and the Midwest.

You are correct that some things are beyond me. Heck I'm just a dumb ole farm boy.

I hope you will tolerate my ignorance and point out my mistakes when I make them.

MagnunJoe
August 8, 2014, 09:39 PM
I wonder what Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (2 gun haters) will say about this.

Willie Sutton
August 8, 2014, 10:59 PM
I hope the people that are hard on her are just as hard as the US Marine who accidently drove into Mexico and has been in a Mexican jail for months."



Facts are facts, and these are the facts: If a MEXICAN came into the USA with illegal firearms, and was caught, and jailed, *we* would tell the Mexicans to stuff it if they "demanded" his release.

Good for the goose, good for the gander... he's not an object of my sympathy.

And I'm sorry for the lady that was caught in NJ. I lived there, and I can see it happening. In the end I bet she gets PTI. But it'll be drawn out for a while first. Part of the "plan" in NJ is to terrify the poplulace. One way to do that is to throw someome like her under the bus now and then, or at least give the impression of doing so.

Willie

.

200Apples
August 8, 2014, 11:44 PM
.
And I'm sorry for the lady that was caught in NJ. I lived there, and I can see it happening. In the end I bet she gets PTI. But it'll be drawn out for a while first. Part of the "plan" in NJ is to terrify the poplulace. One way to do that is to throw someome like her under the bus now and then, or at least give the impression of doing so.


Again, Mr. Sutton is right on the money.

The latest from the NRA-ILA web page (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/8/reciprocity-mix-up-leads-to-felony-charges-for-philadelphia-mom.aspx) <--- link

bushmaster1313
August 9, 2014, 10:41 PM
She was in New Jersey on purpose.
She knew she had a loaded gun.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Her only hope in New Jersey is jury nullification or a pardon by Christie.

long range shooter texas
August 10, 2014, 01:36 AM
I just hope nothing happens to her when she finally gets to come home,and in her home state she is well protected.

geim druth
August 10, 2014, 09:22 AM
Luckily, she has a great lawyer.
Please donate to her legal defense.
http://gogetfunding.com/project/shaneen-allen-legal-defense-fund

BSA1
August 10, 2014, 10:13 AM
The $31,000 raised so far is much to low as she is going to need money for appeal if she is convicted and to fight appeal from the State if they lose. Frankly the deck is stacked against her on the local level as the Judges are almost sure to be anti-gun Democrats.

Not sure if this is a Supreme Court case but it might reach the Federal Appeal Courts.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 10, 2014, 02:49 PM
In my opinion, the state ought to drop this case to keep it out of the court system. It has potential to reach the Supremes. In my heart and head, I hope they don't drop it because it does have potential to reach the Supremes. (I'd wager the Supremes have already formed opinions for if and when this reaches them.)

Woody

Willie Sutton
August 10, 2014, 04:54 PM
^^ Uhh.... no.

This is an open and closed case under NJ Statute. No constitutional aspect involved.

Only bad press will influence anyone in the offices there. PTI is about all she can hope for.

She does have an excellent lawyer.


Willie

.

BBQJOE
August 10, 2014, 04:56 PM
I feel bad for the woman.
I find it hard to believe she didn't know the law, but upon investigation, PA does not require any training nor a course to obtain a carry permit.
Many states recognize NJ, but NJ recognizes no one.

But I'm just dumbfounded that they don't require classes. Realistically, no one should have to have a permit to carry, this we all pretty much agree on, I think. But, I have to say that I learned so much about laws pertaining to carrying from the class I had to take, that I think it should be required for everyone, even just the simple things, such as when to fire and when to absolutely not fire etc.

If there had been a course in place, you can bet your bottom dollar that any good instructor would have pounded it home not to carry in Jersey.

So I'm on the fence whether she knew better or not.

BSA1
August 10, 2014, 05:39 PM
Another viewpoint to consider is many folks look to the Police to inform and educate them about the law without fear of being arrested.

(Well with incidents like this maybe not quite as many).

How does this build trust in talking to the Police if there is a possibility (probability) of being arrest if the issue you are inquiring about is illegal?

For example marijuana grows wild around where I live. It is very common to see it growing in roadside ditches and the County does not even brother to control (spray) it. So not being very knowledgeable I cut some, show it to a LEO and ask them what it is. Well I'm in possession of a illegal substance and as bushmaster1313 says "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Is this the America you want to live in?

Sam1911
August 10, 2014, 05:39 PM
I find it hard to believe she didn't know the law, but upon investigation, PA does not require any training nor a course to obtain a carry permit.1st off, she knew or she didn't know -- doesn't really matter to anyone. The courts don't care. "I didn't know" doesn't help her case.

But I'm just dumbfounded that they don't require classes. Realistically, no one should have to have a permit to carry, this we all pretty much agree on, I think. So, does your home state of AZ require classes before they issue...

...Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute! I'm dumbfounded that AZ doesn't even require a permit at all! How would you know not to carry in NJ? ;)

But, I have to say that I learned so much about laws pertaining to carrying from the class I had to take,What class did you have to take? AZ hasn't required a permit to carry since 2010. Must have been before that.

...that I think it should be required for everyone, even just the simple things, such as when to fire and when to absolutely not fire etc.You think a CCW class can teach when to fire and when to absolutely not fire? How? That's about the most complicated and potentially disastrous question they could try to provide an solid answer to.

They could teach a little bit about the law and how it does work, but I can't imagine a class being able to definitively specify when you can (or must) shoot and when you can't (or must not) except in the broadest terms. Most classes I'm familiar with go into statutory details like which places are prohibited and the easy stuff like that, but will shy away from trying to tell someone when they CAN shoot someone else. A good course might have a few hypothetical situations at the kindergarten level, but the final decision to pull the trigger, or not to, no one else can really make but the shooter.

If there had been a course in place, you can bet your bottom dollar that any good instructor would have pounded it home not to carry in Jersey.The only state-dictated course I've had to take was Utah's, and I don't recall a single minute (of about 8 hours) spent going over any other state's laws.

BBQJOE
August 10, 2014, 06:22 PM
Sam, with all due respect, I did take AZ's CCW class quite a few years ago. Back then it was 16 hours over two days. There was a written exam as well as a firearm proficiency test.
I believe I had a stellar instructor. Mostly discussed was law, and many what if scenario's. We also discussed the reciprocity of other states concerning our permits.
Many people taking the course were astounded that you can't shoot a guy in the back going out the door with your TV. Common sense stuff that isn't so common to others. Things like this are a good thing to know, and I believe a course teaching these things is a good thing.
Let me reiterate, they didn't say, ok in this scenario go ahead and shoot, and in this one don't. You can't teach that, but you can have a better understanding of how the law might or might not work in certain situations if they're presented and talked through.


The fact that she didn't know, as you said, doesn't matter to the courts, but again I offer if there was a mandatory course in place, she may have known better. Her life may just be ruined for committing an unconstitutional victim-less crime.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 10, 2014, 06:48 PM
^^ Uhh.... no.

This is an open and closed case under NJ Statute. No constitutional aspect involved.

Only bad press will influence anyone in the offices there. PTI is about all she can hope for.

She does have an excellent lawyer.


Willie

.
Of course there is a constitutional issue involved: The infringement upon her Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

Willie Sutton
August 10, 2014, 07:27 PM
^^

Uhh....No.

Nothing in this particular case has anything to do with any constitutional questions.

1: The rights of each state to regulate the carriage of firearms within its own jurisdiction is not under debate. Can't challenge that.

2: NJ "Does" provide a mechanism to apply for a permit to carry a handgun. This woman did not so apply. No case there.

3: NJ does not recognize other states permits, and has no obligation to do so. No case there.


So... nope. No case for SCOTUS to consider.

Bottom line: In regards to other than reciting the tried and true feel-good knee-jerk phrase "It violates her rights", well... <sigh> ... it doesn't violate her rights.


Now:

The *manner* in which NJ issues (or denies) applications for handgun permits might be subject to challenge *by persons who have standing to litigate it*, but this woman did not apply for a NJ permit, and thus has no standing in any such challenge.

Bottom line: She simply violated a NJ law that's stood up to scrutiny for many many decades.



Sad but true. It's pretty open and shut really.



Willie

.

Midwest
August 10, 2014, 07:33 PM
Three-quarters (76%) of registered voters in the Garden State favor greater restrictions on guns and ammunition.

That sounds about right. New Jersey has VERY low gun ownership. You CANNOT just go to Walmart or wherever in New Jersey and pay for the rifle and pass a 5 minute NICS like in free America without the "card".

This is due to the requirement of the Firearms ID card which has to be first obtained from the Police Department. You cannot buy a rifle without that card.

So why don't more people in NJ have that card? Well, they have to apply for it at the police department and there is an $18 fee for that. They have to supply two to three references (including one from your employer in some towns).

Some towns require notarized references, then you have to get fingerprinted and there is a $65 fee for that, then there is the mental health release from the county, then there is the state background check and then the local police chief has the final say and then there is an another fee for the card. Six weeks to six months later you get the card.

Find a rifle you like? Great make sure you have the card on you, then you give the clerk your card, checks your drivers license and they call state NICS. Oh yes there is a $15 fee for state NICS and they charge tax on top of that for the NICS fee.

Want a handgun? You have to fill out another form and provide 2 to 3 references (see above), go through another mental health check, another state background check with approval from your local police chief...then six weeks to six months you might be able to buy your handgun. But remember you are only allowed to buy one handgun a month in New Jersey. And don't forget about the $15 State NICS fee and the tax for the NICS fee.

Oh Yes NJ State NICS is closed on Sundays, State and Federal Holidays (plus whenever it snows and the state govt. shuts down). Did I mention that NJ State NICS has also has limited hours compared to the federal NICS? They are only open 9am to 8pm Monday through Friday and Saturday only from 10 am to 5 pm.

http://www.shoreshotpistolrange.com/pdf/NICS.pdf

Now we know why NJ has such low gun ownership and that 76% figure is probably correct because it is a good bet that non of those 76% own any guns.
.

Double Naught Spy
August 10, 2014, 08:04 PM
The only state-dictated course I've had to take was Utah's, and I don't recall a single minute (of about 8 hours) spent going over any other state's laws.

Interesting, my instructors have stressed that you do learn the laws of other states where you might carry...in regard to reciprocity laws and that our laws are not the same as other states, but no discussion of specific other state laws. In short, the emphasis was that you need to know the law of the land where you will be or risk having problems.

But as you said, that doesn't matter. The law does not require that you have knowledge of it for it to be applicable to you.

Sam1911
August 10, 2014, 09:12 PM
Sam, with all due respect, I did take AZ's CCW class quite a few years ago. Back then it was 16 hours over two days. There was a written exam as well as a firearm proficiency test.
Fair enough. Still, the people of your state have decided that a mandatory test, or even any sort of state oversight/licensing of gun totin' folks was not worth it in the balance.

Almost all of us say that training in law, in firearms skills, and in street smarts/situational awareness, is crucial. But we will NOT say the word "mandatory," as there should be no requirements levied for exercise of a right.

I believe I had a stellar instructor. Sounds like it. Your course was far more extensive than most . Of course, that means more expensive (for you, or for the taxpayers) and more exclusive.

Many people taking the course were astounded that you can't shoot a guy in the back going out the door with your TV. Common sense stuff that isn't so common to others. Things like this are a good thing to know, and I believe a course teaching these things is a good thing. Oh, and we here all would bash folks right over the head with the idea that such an education is supremely important if you're going to carry a lethal weapon.

But mandatory? That's problematic for many reasons.

You can't teach that, but you can have a better understanding of how the law might or might not work in certain situations if they're presented and talked through.Absolutely agreed!

The fact that she didn't know, as you said, doesn't matter to the courts, but again I offer if there was a mandatory course in place, she may have known better. The sad truth is, if she REALLY didn't know and cared about the law, she could have learned THIS from one line on a mimeographed handout. Didn't even need a mandatory training course. Seems like walking a mile just to get around the corner, so to speak.

Her life may just be ruined for committing an unconstitutional victim-less crime.Surely. Many people find themselves in that situation every day, with guns or otherwise.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 10, 2014, 10:03 PM
^^

Uhh....No.

Nothing in this particular case has anything to do with any constitutional questions.

1: The rights of each state to regulate the carriage of firearms within its own jurisdiction is not under debate. Can't challenge that.

2: NJ "Does" provide a mechanism to apply for a permit to carry a handgun. This woman did not so apply. No case there.

3: NJ does not recognize other states permits, and has no obligation to do so. No case there.


So... nope. No case for SCOTUS to consider.

Bottom line: In regards to other than reciting the tried and true feel-good knee-jerk phrase "It violates her rights", well... <sigh> ... it doesn't violate her rights.


Now:

The *manner* in which NJ issues (or denies) applications for handgun permits might be subject to challenge *by persons who have standing to litigate it*, but this woman did not apply for a NJ permit, and thus has no standing in any such challenge.

Bottom line: She simply violated a NJ law that's stood up to scrutiny for many many decades.

Sad but true. It's pretty open and shut really.

Willie

1: States don't have rights. States only have powers granted to them by the people of the state, and that is subject to the supremacy of the US Constitution.

2: Providing a mechanism to acquire a permit does not circumvent the Second Amendment. Requiring a permit does violate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is an infringement.

3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is protected across the country by the Second Amendment and no state should require a permit for its citizens or the citizens of any other state. The law of the ENTIRE land(the Constitution) is supreme and her RKBA is being infringed by New Jersey and by any other state that requires her to have a permit to own or carry an arm.

The State of New Jersey is criminal in the immediate matter. It is criminal for requiring a permit or permits and it is criminal for prosecuting her under the color of the bogus law.

Her Right to Keep and Bear Arms is under infringement by New Jersey. You may not agree or you may not like it, but that is worthy of a challenge.

Woody

geim druth
August 10, 2014, 10:08 PM
Midwest pretty much nailed it as to the procedures for buying a firearm in New Jersey. There are a whole separate set of laws that deal with possession of a firearm.

She should have stopped before entering New Jersey, unloaded her firearm, cased it and put it in her trunk. To be on the safe side, she should have emptied all the rounds from her magazines and cased them separately from the firearm. She should have covered both firearm and ammo with a blanket and made sure as far as possible that no one knew that she was in possession of a firearm. If the officer who pulled her over found she had a firearm in the car, she should have told him she was on her way directly to the Shore Shot Range in Lakewood for target practice. She should have told him she had just purchased the hollow point ammo and was bringing it directly back home to Pennsylvania.

Frankly, she would have been better off leaving her pistol at home. The use of firearms by civilians for self protection is anathema to most LEOs and prosecutors in New Jersey. If she had used her pistol for self defense she would probably be facing an even longer prison term.

Willie Sutton
August 10, 2014, 10:21 PM
Her Right to Keep and Bear Arms is under infringement by New Jersey. You may not agree or you may not like it, but that is worthy of a challenge.


"Good luck".

Let me know how that all works out for you.

In the real world, any lawyer would laugh at you. It would behoove you to study a "little" on how constitutional challenges to existing laws are really handled.

I defer now to those among us with professional educations in the subject to offer further opinion. Frank? Spats?



Now we know why NJ has such low gun ownership and that 76% figure is probably correct because it is a good bet that non of those 76% own any guns.


Sort of like 5 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner? It's a cultural thing just as much as it is a procedural thing and the barrier set has reinforced the cultural indifference and over 50 years NJ citizens have generally lost any interest in the subject. .

But balancing that is the fact that rights cannot be voted away. That can be attempted, but in the end we *do* work under the Constitution. The gears of the machine working towards removing barriers to excercising those rights is grindign away slow but sure. Illinois, California, and DC... NJ is going to be brought around in court. It might do so kicking and screaming, but it will come around eventually. This womancs case is not one that will be heard though, as she has absolutely no standing for any such litigation. No... she's just outta luck. I wish it were otherwise, but... it ain't.




Willie

.

BSA1
August 10, 2014, 10:47 PM
Just curious as to why so many are making the assumption that she committed a crime and doesn't have a valid legal defense?

There is a presumption of innocence in the legal system. She has not had her day in court yet.

What do we really know about this incident? Very little.

For starters was the traffic stop legal? What did the officer really observe? Did she really commit a traffic violation or was the officer targeting out-of-state drivers? (happens a lot). What was the conversation between the officer and the accused? What about Miranda? Was it a warrantless search? If so was it legal? After all she wasn't attempting to flee and there wasn't any danger of the vehicle being moved before a search warrant could be obtained. And on and on...

Quit being so quick to throw other gunowners under the bus.

Bruno2
August 10, 2014, 11:57 PM
Bottom line is this, she broke the law period. I hate NJ's gun laws and their politicians that keep poisoning our nation on the national level as well as their state level. However, she not only broke the law, but confessed to doing so. I am sure she will get a plea deal to be extorted for money in exchange for her freedom.

Lesson learned, dont talk to the cops.

Tom488
August 11, 2014, 01:38 PM
Just curious as to why so many are making the assumption that she committed a crime and doesn't have a valid legal defense?
Because, under the laws of NJ, she did, and she doesn't.

There is a presumption of innocence in the legal system.
Except in NJ when it comes to firearms. The way the law is written, NJ pre-supposes guilt, and REQUIRES the defendant ot prove innocence.

Don't believe me? 2C:39-5b "possession of a handgun is illegal without a permit". 2C:39-2 "when a permit or license is required, it shall be assumed that one does NOT possess such license or permit, until proven otherwise"

For starters was the traffic stop legal?
Of course. Even if not, a simple statement of, "I pulled her over for an unsafe lane change", will squash any attempt of excluding evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

What did the officer really observe?
Whatever he says he observed, as there is no evidence to the contrary.

What was the conversation between the officer and the accused? What about Miranda? Was it a warrantless search? If so was it legal?
The firearm was not discovered incident to a search. SHE VOLUNTEERED THAT INFO. She handed him her credentials, including her PA LTCF, and informed him that she was carrying a firearm in her purse.

RustyShackelford
August 11, 2014, 04:38 PM
In the NYPD, new cadets are taught early during court testifying/court trials: never volunteer information. ;)

Think about it.

Double Naught Spy
August 11, 2014, 09:33 PM
The firearm was not discovered incident to a search. SHE VOLUNTEERED THAT INFO. She handed him her credentials, including her PA LTCF, and informed him that she was carrying a firearm in her purse.

Yep, sort of like volunteering you have a large bag of cocaine in your purse in NJ.

BSA1
August 11, 2014, 10:16 PM
Amazing. Simply Amazing that so many THR members have pronounced this woman guilty based on few lines in article.

One wonders why she should have hired a attorney. One even further wonders why a attorney, a top one at that, would agree to defend her in court.

People beat traffic tickets all the time. So what makes you think this stop was legal?

Since she has been found guilty without all, actually very few facts, presented by this forum then I wonder how members are in favor of doing away with a trial altogether saving taxpayer dollars?

While the deck may well be stacked against on the local level it seems lost on this Internet Jury that a arrest does not mean the law is constitutional and will withstand examination by the (higher) courts.

Hopefully someone on THR will follow this case and post updates.

Double Naught Spy
August 12, 2014, 11:39 AM
Amazing. Simply Amazing that so many THR members have pronounced this woman guilty based on few lines in article.

No, she did that when she volunteered to the officer that she was carrying a gun for which she did not have a proper permit. She was admitted to an officer that she was breaking the law.


Allen reiterated that she immediately told the officer she had a gun in her 2007 Chevrolet sedan, as well as a concealed carry permit for neighboring Pennsylvania.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/20/philly-mother-hopes-for-leniency-from-new-jersey-judge-on-gun-charges/

She might somehow get out of the charges, but her guilt was volunteered.

SleazyRider
August 12, 2014, 12:10 PM
"I didnít even get the chance to understand the laws. I only had it [the gun] a week.Ē

Hmmmm. This seems disingenuous. Understanding gun laws begins with the ownership of a gun?

NoVA Shooter
August 12, 2014, 01:57 PM
Amazing. Simply Amazing that so many THR members have pronounced this woman guilty based on few lines in article.

One wonders why she should have hired a attorney.
Because being guilty of breaking a law and the outcome (e.g. consequences) of that transgression are not cut and dry.

One even further wonders why a attorney, a top one at that, would agree to defend her in court.


Attorneys get paid regardless of the innocence/guilt of their clients or the outcome of the case.


People beat traffic tickets all the time. So what makes you think this stop was legal?

Beating a traffic ticket, or any criminal charge for that matter, does not mean you didn't commit the crime. The legality of the stop has nothing to do with the FACT that she broke the law. Now, whether or not they can make a legal case against her is a completely different matter.


Since she has been found guilty without all, actually very few facts, presented by this forum then I wonder how members are in favor of doing away with a trial altogether saving taxpayer dollars?

Strawman...
Again, all we are saying she is guilty of committing the crime. There simply is no way to deny that.


While the deck may well be stacked against on the local level it seems lost on this Internet Jury that a arrest does not mean the law is constitutional and will withstand examination by the (higher) courts.
It's constitutional until a court says it's not. As of right now, the law is what the law is, and she broke it. Please, don't mistake our pragmatism for us condoning a bad law or lack of disgust that she was even charged.



Hopefully someone on THR will follow this case and post updates.

You're more than welcome to take on the task. :)

BSA1
August 12, 2014, 08:11 PM
NoVA Shooter,

Just so I am clear people who have accused of, tried and found not guilty in Court committed a crime but they just are not paying a penalty for it.

I will continue to argue that until the accused has their day in Court and are convicted for a crime they are innocent. This is one of the founding principles of our country. By pronouncing guilt without a trial and by public opinion is making us subjects to the Crown.

p.s. I don't live in N.J. so I can't track the case but maybe THR member that lives there will keep us posted.

Tom488
August 13, 2014, 09:45 AM
I will continue to argue that until the accused has their day in Court and are convicted for a crime they are innocent. This is one of the founding principles of our country. By pronouncing guilt without a trial and by public opinion is making us subjects to the Crown.
There is a big difference between the government pronouncing someone guilty without due process, and a bunch of lay people, with no power over the outcome of the process, stating that, "she's going to be found guilty".

We're simply analyzing the situation, taking what we know about the facts (which, admittedly, are usually not complete), combined with our observations about similar situations in the state, and predicting an outcome. Much the same as a meteorologist sticks his head out the window, looks at the dark, looming clouds above, and predicts precipitation.

The laws in NJ re: firearms are VERY specific, not as to what's illegal, but as to what is LEGAL. The FACTS of the case, which I think we can all agree on, are as follows:

- She was in possession of a handgun
- She was within the borders of the State of NJ
- She did not possess a NJ permit to carry

The suppositions we're making, while not proven, but which are HIGHLY likely:

- She was not going directly to a shooting range
- She was not going to a place of hunting
- She was not moving from one residence to another
- She was not transporting the firearm to a place of repair

Given all of the above, THE VERY LIKELY outcome of her case is a guilty verdict.

BSA1
August 13, 2014, 12:13 PM
My last word then I am done with this guilt by Internet.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says it better than I ever can;

"The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this the perfect gun case defendant?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!