Christie dropped the ball on this one. Full pardon SHOULD happen. The sad thing is, that Aiken did everything right. He contacted the Jersey State Police to find out what he needed to do before he headed there. Did exactly what they said, and STILL got hammered.

Why exactly, are people so afraid of guns?

People are afraid of guns because guns all have minds of their own, they can go off at anytime.

Guns also have the tendency to turn decent regular people into killers. Right now I'm typing this response without a gun...now I'm typing one handed and have a gun in my other hand and now have the incredible desire to go out shoot, rob, and rape people in the park...

People are afraid of guns because they are stupid. Think about it, we have now nearly an entire generation that is mechanically incompetent, raised by whiny parents that are also nearly mechanically incompetent...guns have multiple moving parts and when used properly meter out destruction (or protection)...

People are stupid, if you ban guns then people will simply find a new weapon...Example: England has guns nearly outlawed, stabbings are now common. They wish to outlaw knives, if passed you can count on that in a few years they will try and outlaw rocks and tall buildings...

There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.

Funny, isn't it Red, that the more our society moves away from personal responsibility, the more gun control seems to be happening?

Banning guns won't do a thing. I could kill you with a pencil, in about 3 seconds. But nobody's for banning pencil's, are they?

A gun is a tool. No more, no less. Too bad the idiots don't get, that it is, as you say, the people who determine the use, not the weapon.

"But nobody's for banning pencil's, are they?"

From the files of Truth is Stranger Than Fiction:
http://boingboing.net/2010/11/29/teacher-bans-pencils.html

Elle,

While that shows the teacher did TRY to ban it at 1 school, it didn't happen. I live in chicago, where the firearm ban was just lifted. Funny, but in all those years that law abiding citizens couldn't own a gun, gun related crimes didn't go down. I wonder why that is (rhetorical).

The only people that gun bans hurt, are law abiding people. The criminals don't worry about the laws in the first place. And it's a disgrace that the idiots in government tacitly support the criminals over the law abiding people.

I've heard a couple of opinions that it was commuted so that the actual law itself could be challenged, rather than just this incident.

Swiss, SaysUncle is saying the same thing. Aitken apparently has some backing now for a constitutional challenge to his conviction. If he had received a full pardon, he would no longer have standing.

SwissArmyD & Cousin Dave,

Interesting. I wonder if Christie talked to Aitken before the decision, or if it just worked out that way?

Amy,

Thank you for blogging about this. I have heard about this case.

As far as this individual case the judge was quite far in the wrong. Essentially the way it works is that when you read the law (total example):

121.A) You can not posses a gun in New Jersey

121.B) The exceptions are unloaded and locked up:

1. Traveling to a gun range
2. Traveling from a former home to new home
3. Traveling to hunt.
4. ...

Essentially what was told to the jury is the stature says 121.A. The jury asked for 121.B three times after having been charged with the case. This was prompted by the defense -- the judge essentially refused to acknowledge that 121.B existed and refused to give the jurors the 121.B exceptions.

Without having 121.B, they had no choice but to convict on the 121.A.

Luckily Governor Christie refused to continue this judge's tenure. He is now out of the court system. As far as the Commute vs. Pardon -- that may be why Christie did it. I want the guy to win.

Personally:

I have several weapons -- from guns to live swords to several pocket or lock-blades.

I have had many long, weird, conversations getting friends to understand that I am a typical gun owner. They all agree that I am a responsible gun (or weapon) owner. Once they get that, I can generally talk them into the second amendment.

The second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My emphasis added. The point is not John Doe, the hunter, can go out and hunt deer, bear, or rabbit. The point was that the individual States have a right to defend their state from encroachment by a leviathan federal government.

Times have changed -- but we need to look at it.

The "right to bear arms" was written with the intent of providing citizens with the entitlement to form a militia. It was only really even established to justify the guerrilla manner by which colonists gained independence from the British. Also, one must take into account the fact that it was a lot more common in the U.S. at that time for the typical American family to have to fight off a bear on their way to work than it is now today. That said, in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to own a firearm. It is also illegal to transport legitimately bought firearms from other states through the nation's capitol, as that is how most guns come into the possession DC residents. While it is unfortunate, ignorance of a law does NOT excuse it. The NJ man shouldn't have gotten special treatment.

So Katie did you miss the post about the legal exceptions to the law that the judge hid from the jury? or are you just deciding to ignore it?

And do you seriously belive that a man should serve more then a decade of his life in prison(a prospect gaurenteed to involve occasional beatings and rapes) just for transporting his legal property to his new home?

Just because personal responibility is too great a burden for your frail spirt is no reason to punish those of us strong enough to think for ourselves

Lujlp,

She did miss the point. Not only did he do what was required, he checked ahead of time, on just what he was supposed to do, to keep within the law.

Katie is trying to equate law abiding, responsible gun owners with criminals. It's something the anti-gun nuts do all the time.

Steve, I'm still waiting to hear more about what was coordinated in terms of granting the commutation. I figure that Christie's staff must have had contact with Aitken's lawyers at some point, since that would be part of the process for screening pardon and commutation requests.

And yes, Katie's just repeating the mantra that gun-control advocates have used for decades to read the Second Amendment out of existence. As I've read somewhere else recently, a good principle to keep in mind in interpreting the Constitution is that any interpretation that leads to an absurd result is probably wrong. The gun-control lobby's position is that the Second Amendment is only a "collective right" that allows the government to establish a military. But the federal and state governments already had that power under Article 1, so there would be no point in drawing up and passing the Second Amendment under that interpretation. That's clearly an absurd result -- why would the Framers go to the trouble of drafting and submitting for ratification an Amendment that was fully redundant to the existing Constitution?

The key to it is that the term "militia" at the time included all able-bodied adults. Each citizen had both a right and an obligation of defense, both self-defense and contributing to the common defense. No, most of us aren't threatened by bears these days. But we are threatened by meth-head home invaders. Why would we have the right to defend against the former and not the latter? And don't even go there with that "it's the police's job". As Glenn Reynolds frequently says, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Any reading of the Second Amendment that does not include the right to self-defense is both self-contradictory and, ultimately, immoral. The Bill of Rights guarantees a number of rights to the citizens. What right is more fundamental than the right to secure your person from assault? If you can't defend yourself and your property from physical attack, then all the other rights are meaningless. Without the Second Amendment and its right of self-defense, the rest of the Constitution would be a cruel hoax.

Cousin Dave,

Amen. Or Achoo.

Whatever belief system works for you. :)

Let's deconstruct this:

The "right to bear arms" was written with the intent of providing citizens with the entitlement to form a militia. It was only really even established to justify the guerrilla manner by which colonists gained independence from the British.

As Cousin Dave noted above -- Article I of the constitution mentions militias. The Second Amendment is to secure the right to the individual states, and their citizens, the ability to keep or raise a militia to protect the individual state from tyranny from the federal government or neighboring states.

If you look at some of the original constitutions of the individual states -- they had state established religions, slavery, suffrage (or not), and other clauses that would be abhorrent to us now, and even back then would not be acceptable from your neighbor to the north or south. The states were always intended to to be at an equal level to the fed. The point is that one state (or commonwealth) could have a ready (or passive) defense ready if they so desired. This was the intent of the Constitution.

If your state wanted to have a 50% taxes and have universal health care, welfare and all the rest. Great for you and the people that live there.

If a state only wanted to provide roads from end-to-end and you could own a LAWs rocket and an M-60 machine gun, your state could say that was legal. Great for you and the people that live there.

If your state wanted to restrict gun ownership and you didn't want to live there -- you could move to the state that allows you to own M-60's. It was a decision you could make.

Trying to get weapons after the shooting has started is always a wing and a prayer. The states wanted the people to be ready to step up now.

That the SCOTUS finally incorporated the Second Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago) is a great leap forward for the US citizens, but is a loss for the original intent of the Constitution. Each state was supposed to be an individual (or grouped) experiment of that/those state's desires.

attribution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Also, one must take into account the fact that it was a lot more common in the U.S. at that time for the typical American family to have to fight off a bear on their way to work than it is now today.

I'm embarrassed to say this -- but I had a young possum that was getting into my house. I trapped and released it with a humane trap. I sealed the entry ways as best I could. It showed up in my house again. I blew it away -- inside my own house -- with a shotgun. Granted I have no family, but I ran out of resources. What if I had kids and/or spouse I was worried would get bitten? What -- call the cops to sit at my house for the possum to come out of the shadows? Dump poison around my house cat? Note that in my neck of the woods the local Animal control only comes out for dogs, and charge at least $15.

That said, in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to own a firearm. It is also illegal to transport legitimately bought firearms from other states through the nation's capitol, as that is how most guns come into the possession DC residents.

District of Columbia v. Heller:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. -- attribution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Thankfully those laws are in the past. Can you show me the rise in gun violence in the time since June 26, 2008? I would absolutely to see evidence of that. Please provide it.

While it is unfortunate, ignorance of a law does NOT excuse it.

Laws:

• Ohio: Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.


• Texas: It is illegal to take more that three sips of beer while standing.


• Nevada: It's still "legal" to hang someone for shooting your dog on your property.

attribution: www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws.htm

The day you can say that you know every law that you live under -- both state and fed -- without breaking at least one of them, don't even try to state that old saw. I agree that rape, murder, arson, and mayhem are fairly obvious. The rest are questionable.

I can't find attribution, but as I understand it, he did call the state police about moving the guns.

The NJ man shouldn't have gotten special treatment.

Where does anyone ask for special treatment? He was asking for equal treatment. That the judge denied the exemptions to the jury three times says to me the judge had an agenda. He just wanted to go home and get on with his life.

As a general response to Katie at December 23, 2010 12:28 AM and her comment:

I have been around, handling, using or otherwise aware of guns since 1972 (age seven). I have criticized hunters for not tracking their game (and lousy shots).

I have as yet to shoot another human. I was in the back lines in the USAF, but was expected to know how to handle one. I was also willing to use one if needed in defense or offensive use, if needed.

I have legally owned multiple firearms since 1987 -- they have as yet to harm a human.

Take the time to educate yourself on the issue, and you may come back with a different view.

Jim,

http://current.com/16j9m4c

Thank you Steve.

I am so tired of the knee-jerk reaction that guns are bad. A gun is a tool.

If you hand a hammer to your five year old and he puts a hole in a wall or hits his three year old on the head -- do you blame the hammer?

If you let a seven year old have unrestricted access to circular saw and he cuts up the deck or cuts off his five year old brother's hand -- do you blame the saw?

But if you let a 22 year old have a gun -- and he shoots someone -- it is the gun's fault? The dichotomy in thinking just amazes me.

If you have a gun -- know what can happen from using it.

If you are not a gun owner -- realize that the majority of gun owners know the difference between right and wrong.

None of the laws in New Jersey (or anywhere else) against legal gun owners make a real difference. The fact I own a gun does not make me a horrible person.

A criminal that doesn't respect the law in the first place and has a gun will rob your local convenience store or house regardless of all the laws about registration or concealed carry. The criminal has already broken the law. What stops him from going onto the next step?

Don't miss this.

If you have an emotional reaction to the presence of a gun, you should examine why that is so.

Rad,

I love that link -- Thank you!