Is this the perfect gun case defendant?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

^^

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

NYPD court testifying.....

In the NYPD, new cadets are taught early during court testifying/court trials: never volunteer information.

Think about it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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]

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]

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/2014/07/2...eniency-from-new-jersey-judge-on-gun-charges/

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

 

[SleazyRider]

"I didn’t even get the chance to understand the laws. I only had it [the gun] a week.”

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

 

[NoVA Shooter]

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]

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]

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]

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."