• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Family: New Jersey man serving 7 years for guns he owned legally

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Family: New Jersey man serving 7 years for guns he owned legally


EVERYTHING Brian Aitken was or had worked for was wiped away one winter afternoon after his mother called the police on him.

Separated from his wife, the entrepreneur and media consultant, now 27, had moved back home to New Jersey from Colorado toward the end of 2008 to be closer to their young son.

In between jobs, his well-oiled life was running ragged, and on Jan. 2, 2009, when his ex canceled his visit with their son, he became distraught, muttered something to his mother, and left his parents' home in Mount Laurel, N.J.

"He said something that scared her, things that a guy will only say to his mom, like . . . 'Life's not worth living anymore,' " said Larry Aitken, Brian's father.

Family: New Jersey man serving 7 years for guns he owned legally | Philadelphia Daily News | 11/30/2010




This is the insanity of hoplophobic gun grabbers. The likley outcome of the gun control lobby's policies.

This could happen to any of us in NJ. I hope Christie does the right thing here.
 
Yup, I saw that. Thank you unreasonable law enforcement and overzealous DA's who can't see the point in upholding the rights and liberties of the individual but rather want to get more arrests/convictions.
 
One man gets treated unfairly under the law, therefore those laws shouldn't exist? Wait what? I'm sure someone's locked up for a murder they didn't commit.
 
I am not so sure this has anything to do with gun grabbers and hoplophobia. I would like to believe that prosecutors exercise good common sense in deciding who to prosecute and it looks this was not done in this case. I think injustice happens in all kinds of cases because prosecutors want to pad that winning percentage or are drunk on their own power. Gun cases are no exception or nothing special in that regard. Unless there are other facts about the case not discussed in this article, my sympathies are with Brian Aitken and I would hope justice is done in this case.
 
One man gets treated unfairly under the law, therefore those laws shouldn't exist? Wait what? I'm sure someone's locked up for a murder they didn't commit.

Not nessecarily, I think the way the law is applied needs to be reviewed.
 
One man gets treated unfairly under the law, therefore those laws shouldn't exist? Wait what? I'm sure someone's locked up for a murder they didn't commit.


NJ is not Arizona, the gun laws are purposefully vague so that they can be applied at whim.


Tell me what does "substantially identical" mean to you?
 
I am not so sure this has anything to do with gun grabbers and hoplophobia. I would like to believe that prosecutors exercise good common sense in deciding who to prosecute and it looks this was not done in this case. I think injustice happens in all kinds of cases because prosecutors want to pad that winning percentage or are drunk on their own power. Gun cases are no exception or nothing special in that regard. Unless there are other facts about the case not discussed in this article, my sympathies are with Brian Aitken and I would hope justice is done in this case.


Another unfamiliar with the peoples republic of new jersey.
 
One man gets treated unfairly under the law, therefore those laws shouldn't exist?

Who said that? You'll have to point out where someone said that there should be no gun laws, or that even the one he was prosecuted under should be completely thrown out. Is that around somewhere? No? So you were just making a point of using hyperbole to try to express an opinion that didn't exist? Hmmm, interesting.

One of the major problems, IMO, with gun laws is transportation across State lines. This is a really messy situation and can be particularly complicated on the East Coast, where you pass into a new State like every 7 minutes or something [make a proper sized State!]. The guns and clips and ammo he bought were all legal under Colorado law; the State he lived in previously and the State he bought everything in. There was no problem. I think that we really need to consider either some set basis for the country (which is scary given the federal government), or some law in which you are held to the standards of the State you reside in. Guns which have been purchased in other States while you were resident of that State should be allowed too. There needs to be some ability to transfer and transport guns and there is no reason to needlessly and so aggressively (7 years....seriously?) go after such a non-violent and non-issue "criminal" as this man.
 
Another unfamiliar with the peoples republic of new jersey.

So you can show evidence that this New Jersey gun problem is wide spread and there is some sort of pattern which proves your suspicions about gun grabbers?
 
Tell me what does "substantially identical" mean to you?

It means that whatever you are doing or have at that moment is illegal and you better be real nice to the cops because they can arbitrarily throw you in jail at their discretion. Be a good boy!
 
So you can show evidence that this New Jersey gun problem is wide spread and there is some sort of pattern which proves your suspicions about gun grabbers?



NJ doesn't have a wide spread gun problem, it has a government problem. :shrug:
 
New Jersey allows exemptions for gun owners to transport weapons for hunting or if they are moving from one residence to another. During the trial, Aitken's mother testified that her son was moving things out, and his friend in Hoboken testified he was moving things in. A Mount Laurel officer, according to Larry Aitken, testified that he saw boxes of dishes and clothes in the Honda Civic on the day of the arrest.

The exemption statute, according to the prosecutor's office, specifies that legal guns can be transported "while moving." Despite testimony about his moving to Hoboken, a spokesman for the prosecutor said the evidence suggested that Aitken had moved months earlier, from Colorado to Mount Laurel. "Again, there was no evidence that he was then presently moving," spokesman Joel Bewley said.
Really? Looks like two witnesses and the cop were wrong then, huh.

After Nappen raised the moving-exemption issue, he said, the jury asked Judge Morley for the exemption statute several times and he refused to hand it over to them. Morley, in a phone interview, echoed the sentiments of the prosecutor's office.

"My recollection of the case is that I ruled he had not presented evidence sufficient to justify giving the jury the charge on the affirmative offense that he was in the process of moving," Morley said.
Yeah, wtf do witnesses and the arresting officer know anyway, right?
 
NJ doesn't have a wide spread gun problem, it has a government problem. :shrug:

So you can provide evidence that New Jersey has this government problem with guns?

Otherwise this is simply one sad story of an alleged injustice.
 
NJ is not Arizona, the gun laws are purposefully vague so that they can be applied at whim.

Tell me what does "substantially identical" mean to you?

Actually I regret making that post, its a silly arguement for more reasons than that one.
 
So you can provide evidence that New Jersey has this government problem with guns?

Otherwise this is simply one sad story of an alleged injustice.



Manalapan Police Department's Outrageous Handgun Permit Application; Is this Legal?? - New Jersey Gun Forums
As Much As Mass Gun Laws Suck, New Jersey Is Worse. [Archive] - Northeastshooters.com
Corzine calls for tougher gun laws... - Constitutional Emergency
GUNS: Yet Another NJ Gun Law « Reinke Faces Life



I can go on for days. You are free to google a counter if you wish, but I clearly established my case.
 

I read your links. What you are presenting is antecdotal evidence - of a rather minor nature - which does NOT demonstrate any sort of widespread problem in New Jersey regarding guns.

I wonder if you read all of your own links? Read the last one and you will see at the end of it is clearly says that the bill was NOT enacted into law.

On Thursday, May 10, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee decided to take no action on Assembly Bill 3494, sponsored by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-6) and Assemblyman Peter Barnes (D-18).
 
Last edited:
I read your links. What you are presenting is antecdotal evidence - of a rather minor nature - which does NOT demonstrate any sort of widespread problem in New Jersey regarding guns.

I wonder if you read all of your own links? Read the last one and you will see at the end of it is clearly says that the bill was NOT enacted into law.



I've offerd you the proper path to offer counter arguments via links, you have failed, and I don't plan on playing tangent diversion games with the likes of your. :shrug:
 
I've offerd you the proper path to offer counter arguments via links, you have failed, and I don't plan on playing tangent diversion games with the likes of your. :shrug:

But you have not presented any evidence to support whatever point you believe in your own mind that you are making. There is no need for any counter argument since you have failed to present one in the first place.

You charge that New Jersey has a government problem with guns. But all you can do is present a very minor bit of anecdotal evidence and some of what you presented shows the opposite of what you intended it to do.

I do not blame you for cutting and running since you clearly cannot support this spurious claim you make and have no real hard evidence to present. That is probably a wise decision on your part.

What we have here is a story about one man who appears to be the unfortunate victim of an over zealous prosecutor and a judge who did a poor job at trial. Beyond that, we have nothing.
 
Last edited:
According to your link, the facts of the case are in something of dispute. That makes it impossible to judge properly. We are only really seeing the families side of the argument, which may or may not be accurate. Rushing to judgment based on disputed facts is probably not a good thing to do.
 
According to your link, the facts of the case are in something of dispute. That makes it impossible to judge properly. We are only really seeing the families side of the argument, which may or may not be accurate. Rushing to judgment based on disputed facts is probably not a good thing to do.



What facts? the guy had a gun in a locked container per NJ law of a legal gun in his trunk.


and for that this guy get's 7 years? :shock:
 
Last edited:
What facts? the guy had a gun in a locked container per NJ law of a legal gun in his trunk.


and for that this hardened criminal:


20101130_dn_g1njxaitk30c.jpg



get's 7 years? :shock:

Stop and think about this: If it is so clear cut, how did he get convicted?
 
Back
Top Bottom