Sadly perfect gun case?

In order to advance gun law in the right direction, it is often (sadly)  necessary for bad things to happen to good people in order to create the “correct” circumstances for a compelling court case that can overturn stupid laws. There may be one in New Jersey now. Short version: a Pennsylvania nurse with a concealed carry permit drove into NJ, got busted during a traffic stop, charged with second degree handgun possession, faces three to ten years if convicted. She has no criminal history, a good job, and two kids, and prosecutors are passing up every opportunity to lighten the charges or penalty. If the facts of the case are as presented in this article, this would be a case to take to the supreme court to strike down such idiot laws. For her sake, I hope the Governor steps in and slaps some sense into the prosecutor and she gets off with a warning- but it shouldn’t have to need that. Anti-gun people like to compare concealed carry permits to driver’s licenses. Well, here’s their chance to see how well that works.

37 thoughts on “Sadly perfect gun case?

  1. It might be attackable on cruel and unusual grounds too. What she did is not a crime at all in at least 5 states and much lower punishment in other states where it’s a crime at all.

  2. I can’t see how she is going to help change gun law. Didn’t she take some sort of educational classes in Pennsylvania to get her concealed carry permit? Didn’t they tell her the permit wasn’t any good in NJ? Or is Pennsylvania one of those states where you don’t need anything to get a CCW?

    • You don’t see how this is a clear case of “shall not be infringed,” when she violated a paper law only, and a NJ permit is virtually impossible to obtain? She’s a model citizen in nearly all ways, doing her best to play by the rules and keep herself safe and not scare or threaten any cops, and it’s going to cost her (potentially) a decade in prison and her kids? That makes sense to you? This is a clear case of the punishment being absurdly out of scale with the “crime.” Violation of 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment, possibly, too.

      • Besides, there are many places where if you’re in the wrong lane you’re boxed in and going to Jersey, like it or not … Sort of like the marine who’s rotting in a Mexican jail.

        • You know, no one mentions this very often, but those loaded guns that Marine was carrying around in his truck were probably illegal in California. I know you aren’t supposed to transport them loaded and I think I saw a 30 round mag in the photo. I don’t know enough about guns to know if his rifle falls under the CA AW ban.

          • Even if they were illegal in California (which, properly, they shouldn’t be, but that’s a different discussion), it isn’t Mexico’s darned business what is legal or not in California. They should have had him turn around and go back to sort-of America.

      • I think she should sue the school in Pennsylvania that failed to tell her that her Penn. CCW wasn’t good everywhere. Her excuse was that she didn’t know.

        So far, the courts have not said that “shall not be infringed” means that you can’t have any laws regulating guns. In fact, Scalia said exactly the opposite.

        • Ah gotta love the Judge Dredd style “It’s the LAW” thinking at work.

          And of course Ubu going for “So you don’t want ANY gun laws then!”

          Nevermind that Rolf’s post also takes the stance of “the punishment seems pointlessly harsh”.

          Nope! It’s a law therefore it HAS to be legitimate.

          I’m sure for fairness Ubu thinks David Gregory should have had the book thrown at him too. Annnnd that Ubu is a strict prosecute illegal aliens with the full weight fo the law.

          • The nice thing about Ubu is she won’t respond to direct questionings.

            It’s like Schrödinger’s cat, but it’s Schrödinger’s “Progressive”. If she’s shown to be wrong and hypocritical, but she never acknowledges it, was she ever wrong!

            “Progressives” exist in a mental quantum state different than functional humans.

          • Yeah, Ubu is funny that way. She definitely comes back to check on things for a bit, but she will ignore any hard questions, and will ignore any and all logic that contradicts her world view. You will note she responded to easier questions further down the page, so this behavior is by choice.

            When you ask her a hard question you may as well include enough detail to finish the train of thought as if she had responded, not wait for a response to add more detail. That way when she inevitably ignores your question the rest of the logic is already there for others to read.

            And then there is the issue that she is too perfect a foil for our side of the debate. I am still not convinced she is not a false flag. I’m looking at you Joe 😉

          • Nope. Ubu52 uses a different IP address than what I have access to. It’s appears to be in California when I’m in Idaho or Washington. So I’m pretty sure it’s not even one of my multiple personalities. 😉

          • A likely story.

            Hey ubu, I’m just the next state over. We should get together for coffee sometime.

          • I don’t respond because you guys are just looking to argue. I comment and move on. I don’t need the argument and sometimes, I just like to point out things that no one is talking about.

          • ‘I don’t respond because you guys are just looking to argue. I comment and move on. I don’t need the argument and sometimes, I just like to point out things that no one is talking about.”

            We aren’t LOOKING to argue, if anybody is doing that it’s you. You know how your views will be taken here, and you consistently post them.

            As for why “nobody is talking about” the points you make, and you get rebuttals is how FLAWED your points are.

            The points only you talk about here are not spoken about for a reason. They’re crap and any rational, functional human would be EMBARRASSED to have their name attached to what you say on a regular basis.

          • Nice response Weer’d.

            Ubu, that is why I call you the too perfect foil for us, you only bring up ideas that have been soundly refuted many times over in the past. Anyone with any familiarity with the subject matter at all knows you ideas are utterly without merit. But you do not know this, because you refuse to read any of the responses, or debate any of the points point people bring up against your ideas. You will only respond to posts that you view as intellectually weak, and you abandon the field as soon as your opponent shores up his argument with more detail, as you did when I tried to draw you into an inevitable logical contradiction in our longish argument about police training and accountability, and as you did here in this thread.

            There is absolutely not reason for officers to be trusted with more responsibility and yet have less accountability, and there is absolutely no reason to have laws on the books that destroy the lives of otherwise law abiding people for trivial reasons, yet you champion both positions. On the other hand I, and many on my side of the debate, call out such laws for the abominations they are, and seek to change them through social awareness and political activism. I will not excuse them, I will not diminish them, and I will not accept them. These laws are tyranny in the truest sense of the word, and they should be recognized for the evil they are and abolished.

            The fact that you refuse to see that and defend such laws, no matter how halfheartedly, shows what side you have picked. Hopefully history will recognize you and your cohorts for the monsters you are, even if you cannot see it for yourself.

          • Owning a gun is a big responsibility, don’t you think? Sure, the punishment seems harsh (if she’s convicted). Perhaps the judge has some leeway? I don’t know that much about NJ law.

          • Nope. No discretion. Mandatory minimum sentence because it’s a scary “gun crime.” So, if “the law is the law,” then you agree that David Gregory should have been tossed in jail for waving a prohibited 30-round magazine around on national TV, right? The DC law is absolutely, totally, crystal clear, what he possessed is forbidden, no question at all. Or does he get a pass, and if so, please spell out exactly WHY that should be so, with reasons that wouldn’t also apply to this Pennsylvania woman. If you cannot, then you must admit your position on guns isn’t logical, it’s emotional.

          • I didn’t really follow the Dick Gregory thing so I don’t have anything to say about it.

            My point on this is: I don’t think her case is going to help change gun laws in NJ.

          • I didn’t really follow the Dick Gregory thing …

            Of course you did not.

            But if any of us Little People were to do something similar, you would be among the first on the ramparts demanding our beheading.

          • But Gregory should get a pass because he asked the police for permission to do what he did, and they didn’t give him that permission!

    • Not all states require training for a permit (NH doesn’t). Not all states require a permit — some just uphold the Constitution, that’s why it’s called Constitution Carry (formerly known as Vermont Carry). For those states that require training, I don’t know what’s covered. Gun safety, probably. State laws, probably. Laws of other states? Not so likely.
      A lot of states have reciprocity: a permit from state X is also good in state Y.
      So even if training was required, it’s not at all obvious why she should have known that the permit was no good in NJ.
      In any case, part of the point here is that the Constitution requires states to honor the “acts” of other states. That rule is why your driver’s license is good in NJ. That rule also requires NJ to honor your carry permit.

  3. This is one of the reasons why I think of New Jersey as a foreign country.

  4. NJ seems ripe for civil disobedience. Their laws are so outrageous you could go down to the state house and get arrested for carrying BB guns without a firearms card. I went to a Dick’s in NJ one time and was informed I couldn’t “handle” a BB gun without a permit. When the law is so at odds with common sense, there are necessarily going to be a ton of unintentional criminals.

    I’m tired of the gun folks who do legal stuff to piss people off instead of illegal things to show the absurdity of the law. You can either carry an AR-15 into a Texas Chipotle or carry a BB gun in Trenton. One is going to garner a lot more sympathy than the other.

  5. Leaving America and going to one of the people’s republics is always risky business…

  6. I thought she was doing the “duty to inform” thing, and being honest. Saying she was busted makes it sound to me like she was trying to hide something, rather than being too honest. Just my .02.

    As always, stay out of Mordor.

    • What “duty to inform”? Duty to inform that you’re carrying a weapon? That’s a popular story and it exists in some states, but not in others.
      I remember seeing directly opposite recommendations on that topic in NH (where there is no such duty) — one of the leading gun rights lawyers recommends not saying anything, Massad Ayoob recommends that you do inform. Interesting. (Massad is a former cop, that might have something to do with his recommendation coming out that way.)

      • I’ve only had NC’s CC class, CC have a duty to inform at traffic stops here.

        Not sure of the rules for PA permits.

      • I was just pulled over this week. had an expired inspection sticker that I had forgotten about with my life turned upside down by a new baby. (also I had gone 11 years inspecting my car every October, remembering now I need to have it inspected in July/June was a hard habit to break).

        Had a .357 in my pocket, and just handed over my license and registration. I was let go with a warning, and got the car inspected the next day.

        One could argue that nothing bad could have happened if I had also handed over my carry permit with my DL…still it would be hard to argue it could have gone BETTER if I had done that.

        So I just was polite, and further thanked the officer for stopping me because I likely wouldn’t have thought to check my sticker any time soon otherwise, and kept my hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 when he approached the car.

        • I rolled over a truck and trailer last Sunday.

          I was wearing a legally concealed pistol. My friend (the owner of the truck and trailer he had asked me to drive) who came along a few minutes later, and was legally open carrying a pistol.

          He got a ten minute runaround of cops from three different departments deferring to each other as to how to handle a calm, middle aged, polite gentlemen wearing a pistol in a proper holster, before telling him he had to go to his truck and disarm.

          Since there is no duty to disclose unless directly asked in this state, and none of the officers felt the need to ask if I was armed (despite it being linked to the DMV computers here), there was no issue with me being armed, no drama, no need to treat me any differently than anyone else who had just been in a fairly scary incident.

          Yeah, although I used to pointedly and routinely hand over my CHP with my driver’s license*, I don’t anymore unless in a state that requires notification. Because of crap like that.

          *(I had a bit of a lead foot in my 20s and early 30s, routinely going 70 in a 55 anywhere I was driving, because traffic normally flowed 70-75 in the 55 zones in my hometown, so I picked up traffic tickets on a regular basis anytime I was away from home.)

  7. I have to wonder what the hell happened to the concept of ‘mens rea’. Does anyone besides ubu believe this lady was up to no good?

      • Even so, Mens Rea should still apply. The real reason is that there are so many laws to follow, we wouldn’t be able to punish anyone breaking them if the person didn’t have a guilty mindset! Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, after all! (Never mind that absolutely no one, in or out of government, even knows what the law is anymore, because there are so many of them.)

    • Mens rea is not a legal principle that’s honored these days. Naturally not, since the purpose of laws is to create more criminals to give the government more power over normal people — as Ayn Rand pointed out decades ago.
      It’s time to dust off the principles outlined by Lysander Spooner in “An Essay on the Trial by Jury”. (Available at gutenberg.org, extremely highly recommended.)

Comments are closed.