Christie pardons Philadelphia mom who was arrested after bringing gun to NJ

[Midwest]

Christie pardons Philadelphia mom who was arrested after bringing gun to NJ


Shaneen Allen the lady from Philadelphia who faced up to three years in prison for bringing her pistol into NJ despite having a carry permit from PA was PARDONED by NJ Governor Chris Christie.

Shaneen was eventually allowed to enter into a pre-trial intervention program after much publicity in the media that highlighted New Jersey's draconian and outdated gun laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/0...om-who-was-arrested-after-bringing-gun-to-nj/


"Christie, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, initially said he would let the case play out in the state's judicial system. He said recently he would consider changing the state's gun laws, but that the Democratic legislature has no appetite for that and instead he would do what was in his purview, such as pardons."
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So is this pandering to the primary electorate, or doing the right thing on principle?

 

[TarDevil]

Doesn't matter. It signifies the weight 2A community carries with politicians and beneficial regardless of motive.

 

[FIGHT NIGHT]

Glad to hear it but I'm not sure it would've happen for a different demographic person.

 

[Red Wind]

So is this pandering to the primary electorate, or doing the right thing on principle?

My gut tells me it's not pandering, that the Governor did this on principle. I think he does have a heart and this case was a grievous injustice.

Yes, the lady made a major error. So did Dallas Cowboy Coach Barry Switzer, when he carried a loaded gun into a airport several ago. His act of foolishness was adjudicated with no jail time. There are many other examples.

It's Good Friday. I thank Governor Christie for doing the right thing.

 

[19-3Ben]

Very tough to comment on this without getting into a political discussion (motives, pandering to the electorate, principled leaders, etc...)
I'm glad that this case was disposed of. I remain VERY suspicious of Christie and wonder if this case would have been pardoned if he did not have presidential aspirations. I will not comment further on that in a public thread.

Perhaps, to keep this on track, let me ask this:
While generally ignorance is no excuse, and all that jive, do you think the laws should account for an honest error such as this? Of course one would have to figure out which things are "honest error" vs. a crime. But this was a case where there was no other associated crime with the arrest, had clean record, and a jury would reasonably believe that there was no malicious intent in this case. So, while it gets waaayyy into murky water, should there be exceptions where there is no mens rea?

 

[Midwest]

I'm glad he pardoned her.

But to make an objective observation. Christie can say that he really is pro-gun by granting this pardon. He will look good to the rest of the nation for this. He could say that even though he is up against an anti-gun legislature and can't sign pro-gun legislation in NJ. He is doing what he can. And he said that in the statement in above.

" He said recently he would consider changing the state's gun laws, but that the Democratic legislature has no appetite for that and instead he would do what was in his purview, such as pardons"

Having said that, there was the question of when the legislation for the the needs based carry permit for an annual review in NJ. Why didn't he do an executive order that changed the definition for the needs based carry permit could have included self defense as a valid reason for a carry permit?

Then we have that issue of Christie supporting an assault weapons ban and even campaigning for it.

My 2000th post! Do I get a free rifle or a Smith and Wesson Model 29? j/k
.

 

[Red Wind]

So, while it gets waaayyy into murky water, should there be exceptions where there is no mens rea?

Absolutely. Mrs. Allen and Coach Switzer are just 2 such examples.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Absolutely. Mrs. Allen and Coach Switzer are just 2 such examples.

I disagree.

The problem being that the legislation does not provide any exemptions. Inventing exemptions like this opens up an enormous 14th Amendment problem, in that we are now making the determination of who is subject to the law based on entirely subjective criteria according to whim.

Let's posit a hypothetical third person who has violated this law. He's got a squeaky clean criminal record- not even a traffic ticket. He's got a job. He's got kids on the honor roll. His wife works for Doctors Without Borders. But he's also active in the Occupy movement, actively protests against Keystone XL, blogs about Christie's troubles with Bridgegate, and contributes to a PAC that wants to see major reform of the banking system.

And you're telling me that it's just fine to make subjective judgements regarding who is going to be subject to the law and who isn't?

Look- gun control laws were originally passed because the people who passed them knew they would only be enforced against blacks. And that was just fine with white people, both liberal and conservative, until the liberals insisted that the law be applied equally.

If we start saying that exemptions for 'good people' are the way to go, we are moving backwards. We're arguing for unequal treatment before the law, instead of arguing to repeal what is a bad law, written to be enforced with racial animus.

 

[Red Wind]

I knew you would disagree. I wanted to see your reaction. We got it. Nothing less that was expected.

I still disagree. Respectfully.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by LemmyCaution:

The problem being that the legislation does not provide any exemptions.

I do not understand your point, or how it would enter into the discussion.

Inventing exemptions like this opens up an enormous 14th Amendment problem, in that we are now making the determination of who is subject to the law based on entirely subjective criteria according to whim.

"Inventing exemptions" like what?

Is there not prosecutorial discretion? Is it not arguably "subjective"?

Is justice always served by imposing criminal penalties for mistakes?

And you're telling me that it's just fine to make subjective judgements regarding who is going to be subject to the law and who isn't?

The accused has not been granted permission to possess a firearm. The question was about criminal prosecution and punishment, in specific circumstances.

I also disagree. Respectfully.

By the way, there is in the law an "exemption", of sorts: there is a diversion program for first time offenders. It is just that the prosecutor did not like the idea here, but he has in other cases.

Subjective judgments, don't you think?

 

[Red Wind]

Thank you, Kleanbore. I believe the Governor of New Jersey, made a completely honest , completely contrite decision, to vacate a totally vacuous , unintentional "crime" by a completely honest citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Allen.

May God give her joy and protection from her enemy's.

Happy Easter.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Is there not prosecutorial discretion? Is it not arguably "subjective"?

There is. There arguably shouldn't be. Prosecutorial discretion largely accounts for disproportionally high incarceration rate for blacks. Whites get diversion or a slap on the wrist. Blacks get the book thrown at them.

Is prosecutorial discretion enshrined in the Constitution? Equal protection sure is.

Is justice always served by imposing criminal penalties for mistakes?

There's justice for the individual, and there's justice for society.

In the case of an individual, no, justice isn't served by punishing mistakes.

In the case of a society where that principle isn't applied evenly, there's an argument to be made for zero tolerance. Perhaps I'm making it, but it should be understood that I think we're talking about selective leniency in regards to a bad law. I want the law repealed. That, in one case, a conviction has been overturned, while a victory, is really triflingly small potatoes.

Of course, someone's going to come barreling in and blather that Shaneen Allen is black, therefore I have no point, and that Christie is showing his true, fair colors here.

And that would be great, if magically the incarceration rate in this country suddenly came reasonably in line with the country's demographics, but that's not what's happening here, is it?

What's happening is a guy who really wants to be president, but has had a lot of bad press lately, and doesn't enjoy much support from the more lunatic side of his political party has found an opportunity to

1: Enamor himself with liberals who want to see a black woman exonerated.
2: Ingratiate himself with the RKBA crowd.
3: Have a great talking point that the GOP isn't biased against blacks.

This is triangulation that nearly out-Clintons Clinton. The political optics on this couldn't possibly be better, and if we weren't already in primary season, Chris Christie wouldn't give a rat's nether about Shaneen Allen. Chris Christie doesn't do small people. Because Chris Christie knows that small people don't matter in the game he's playing.

 

[Kleanbore]

LemmyCaution, you are drawing some conclusions about Christie's motivation that are purely speculative.

Regardless, I think that justice is almost always better served by not punishing a person who has committed an inadvertent, harmless transgression as a felon.

Perhaps they will change the law, perhaps not, but that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

[Red Wind]

Regardless, I think that justice is almost always better served by not punishing a person who has committed an inadvertent, harmless transgression as a felon.

Perhaps they will change the law, perhaps not, but that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

It could not be said better. God relieve the innocent, Mrs. Allen. Governor Christie did the right thing. Praise him on this decision.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Getting political, and some posts were deleted. i think the subject has been covered.