Question of the Day: Is Philly Mom Case a Gun Control Game Changer?

Shaneen Allen and sons (courtesy foxnews.com)

“Shaneen Allen faces 3½ years in prison because she made an honest mistake, followed by a mistake of honesty,” Jacob Sullum opines at nypost.com. Yes, that New York Post. The Murdoch-owned bird cage liner that constantly, hysterically, hyperbolically promotes civilian disarmament. In case you missed the backstory, “Allen, a 27-year-old phlebotomist who lives in Philadelphia, drove to Atlantic City with a gun in her purse, thinking her Pennsylvania carry permit would be respected in New Jersey. Then she told a state trooper about the gun when he pulled her over for a traffic violation . . . Her trial, scheduled for Oct. 6, will pit New Jersey’s draconian gun laws against compassion and common sense.” Is this The Big One? The case that will show-up NJ’s tyranny and signal a shift firearms freedom fence-sitters’ attitude towards lawful carry? [h/t DD]

comments

  1. avatar Hannibal says:

    Sad to say I don’t think this case will be useful for anything… except to remind people to stay out of New Jersey.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      This. I’m looking forward to the day when I no longer call NJ my home.

      1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        c’moooon, you don’t like…overrated beaches and taxes?

        the only things i miss from that place are the sandwiches from the rutgers food trucks…yum

        1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

          Ha… that and the late nights at Cluck-U off College Ave…

        2. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

          Dirty bruns closed the trucks down.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        I feel for you, but you don’t have call NJ your home, just call it your “residence”

    2. avatar borg says:

      It is useful in bringing attention to the fact that gun control is racist. I wonder how many other minorities have been victimized by gun control.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        If there ever was a time to play the Race Card, this is it.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Exactly what I was going to say.

    3. avatar whatever says:

      “. . . remind people to stay out of New Jersey.”

      Never went there, and very happy to stay out of there.

      1. avatar Bob60 says:

        Been there once. Took a wrong turn, and then had to pay a toll to get out. That was 10 minutes of my life I want back.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Happened to me too, but the toll was worth it.

      2. avatar Rich K. says:

        My dad was stationed at the now defunct navy base in Philly in the late 1980’s, when I was in high school. I used to do Revolutionary War re-enacting at Olde Fort Mifflin (near the Philadelphia International Airport). One time, our group was going to go to NJ. I carried a flintlock pistol and rifle as part of my re-enactment gear (at 17 years old I was allowed to use a muzzle-loader in the re-enactments). But I was told I had to leave the pistol behind, as NJ law did not allow them. Even as a teenager I thought this was outrageous, and opted not to go. I mean, get real – a flintlock pistol – the kind of weapon our Founding Fathers knew and loved for personal protection – not allowed to be used even during a re-enactment of a battle in the war that made this a (supposedly) free country? It’s time the SCOTUS slammed the gavel down and declared ALL state (and federal) laws that restrict the rights of law abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms to be absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore null and void, and to free and fully pardon all citizens who have been imprisoned under such laws (unless there were other, more serious crimes associated with their imprisonment that truly made them a danger to society). Maybe President Trump will be able to appoint more than one S.C. justice during his presidency, who will make the RIGHT decisions!

  2. avatar Jake says:

    Will it be the big one? We can only hope.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      I am hoping it gets the ball rolling towards national reciprocity.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        This. I doubt it though.

      2. avatar Jeremy S says:

        That and making jury nullification common knowledge.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Nah. How would it?

        That’s the thing, we have driving reciprocity because each state and its citizens want to be able to drive. That’s how we have the permit reciprocity we do. But as long as places like NJ and MD won’t even let their own citizens carry in their home state, reciprocity is a pipe dream unless you believe in the federal government stepping in.

        1. avatar B says:

          Its a chance for the jury to do their job. If laws were meant to be giant bricks thrown at the citizenry without any emotion, there wouldn’t need to be juries. A jury’s job is to add a buffer of humanity between the cold emotionless force of government. They are the last line when unjust laws no longer serve the public good. We’ll see what happens here, whether the jury thinks the public good is served by destroying this woman.

    2. avatar CentralIL says:

      It is being noticed. I have seen some tweets about it from individuals who don’t normally discuss gun issues.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        Exactly. It humanizes the injustice and silliness of the lack of reciprocity to people who otherwise would have no idea such injustice exists.

    3. avatar Recently departed NJ says:

      There’s a Defense fund online – 1100 paying backers. It was 700 on SAT morning shortly after the NRA Legisltstive Alert highlighted her plight. Nappen’s firm offers all NJ shooting club members no cost phone consults. I kept his number in my iPhone while still exiled in the Garden State. He and his firm are stout supporters of the diminishing 2A community.

      It’s worth considering a donation even though the goal has already been exceeded. We skipped lunch out in my house SAT to fund a modest contribution.

  3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Get the media to hype this law as racist, against the middle/lower middle class, and anti-family. Eventually, even our “betters” will decide to make this go away quietly.

    1. avatar Scott Neves says:

      Dirk is on to the crux here. If the “authorities” continue their hard line and manage to send her to prison the appeals process could blow the lid off national reciprocity. If they wise up prosecutorial “discretion” will make this a non-event. Who knows what the balance of grand standing ego and marginal to bad press is in the minds of these bullies?

      1. avatar mrvco says:

        I see this getting pled down to something inconsequential to keep it out of the courts and the public eye.

        1. avatar ShaunL. says:

          …..WITH a non-disclosure agreement.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          I don’t think you can do a non-disclosure in a criminal case, the disposition is a matter of public record.

        3. avatar Wendy says:

          Another Robert is right. No NDA’s in criminal cases. So if a plea agreement is reached, it’ll be public record.

        4. avatar whatever says:

          “I see this getting pled down to something inconsequential to keep it out of the courts and the public eye.”

          Perhaps, but there are too many hacks in New Jersey ready and eager to appease the grabbers. She needs all the help she can get.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Anybody know somebody in Anonymous? This case would be meat and potatoes for them.

    2. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Spot on, Dirk! The fact is this case exemplifies not only the double standard in law, it points to the larger problem pushing our society to the edge – if your wealthy, you can afford the lawyer to make it go away regardless of the overt nature of the crime you commit. If your a normal law abiding citizen without deep pockets for campaign contributions you will get shafted by a prosecutor who is looking to make points with his boss. This is a case the NRA, GOA, and the 2cd Amendment Foundation should push as a case on social justice.

    3. avatar mirgc says:

      ^^^THIS^^^ (Dirks comment)

      We need to “shannon watts” the media/public and bring it into the headlines more. This is a “perfect storm aligning with the planets” opportunity for a huge PR boost for the pro-2nd amendment side. Young single mom of two happy kids, trying her best to protect herself, stay out of trouble and be a good citizen. VS the gun-control zero-tolerance, zero-common-sense establishment who would punish this woman without mercy, but allow a woman-beater a large degree of lenience.

      1. avatar John M. says:

        I really feel terrible for this lady, and I think the Great American Middle will also. The optics on this case are tremendous for making the case for national reciprocity, right down to the innocent-looking, non-threatening single mom with her two cute little kids.

        And why hasn’t national reciprocity happened on the “full faith and credit” clause? I don’t understand. Seriously, can someone explain this?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          There shouldn’t be “reciprocity” because there shouldn’t be licensing because the Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NotIsn’t supposed to be Infringed anywhere in the counntry, dammit!

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Constitutional Carry is a beautiful principle; a wonderful example of the perfect being the enemy of the good-enough. Our mission NOW needs to be one of moving the great mass of uncommitted voters from where they are (not having thought about guns much) to where we want them to be (recognizing the net benefit of a well-armed populace). Moving public opinion is a delicate process; we should not underestimate how delicate it is. Our major victory in the past quarter-century is getting to 40 Right-to-Carry States. Vermont didn’t help in that effort. It’s voters consistently sent hard Leftists to Washington. ANY CCP is better than Won’t-Issue. The sooner we can get to an onerous CCP law in a Won’t-Issue State the sooner we will get to relaxing the constraints. We already have a sort-of national-reciprocity for LEOs, both active-duty and retired. We need to push LEOSA to a “Private Citizen Safety Act”. Once the citizens of the 40 free States demand their civil rights in the slave States, our sisters and brothers trapped behind enemy lines in the slave States will be emancipated. Have no illusions that the minority of gun-owners in slave States do us no harm. As the slave States collapse their liberal/progressive voters emigrate to free States; e.g., California to Colorado. Our stubbornness will leave the political playing field to the enemies of civil rights.

  4. avatar Second Amendment says:

    Ideally two words: jury nullification.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      “Jury Nullification” are two awesome words – especially when used together. However, the court will make sure that the jurors selected don’t grasp the understanding of “jury nullification” and the concept of their duties as jurors.

      1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        even if they did know what jury nullification is, it wouldn’t surprise me if a NJ jury actually thinks this woman belongs in prison.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Agreed. Jury Nullification in this case would only work if the jurors themselves are not irrational illogical bloody shirt waving anti-gun anti-freedom statists.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          It depends on who gets selected for jury duty. OJ got acquitted, you know.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Jury Nullification is a real crap-shoot. OJ’s trial is NOT comparable to Shaneen’s case. In OJ’s trial the critical issue was the fact of “who done it”. In the jury system deciding questions of fact rests in the hands of the jury; the judge has little control over what the jury does with the facts. He can keep evidence out of the trial; he can allow evidence into the trial. He doesn’t have much leeway to tell the jury what the evidence allowed in the trial mean. There are no facts in dispute in Shaneen’s case. The key issue is whether this felony – carrying a gun without a NJ license – is lawfully “strict liability”; in other words, that the defendant can be convicted without considering the presence/absence of a “guilty mind”. This is not an issue of fact; it’s an issue of law. (There are other similar issues of law; e.g., “full faith and credit”, right-to-bear.) Here, the judge decides. Almost certainly, the judge will allow not one breath of jury nullification be spoken during the trial. Likewise, the prosecutor and judge will do their best to screen-out jurors who might be astute enough to know about jury nullification and avoid admitting that they know. Shaneen and her lawyer are betting that at least one intelligent, astute, moral, wise candidate will slip through the net and get on this jury. There are plenty of individuals in the jury pool that have one of these characteristics, some with two, a few with three but almost none with all four. And, one of these has to be in the pool of candidates for this trial.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Agreed. Jury Nullification in this case would only work if the jurors themselves are not irrational illogical bloody shirt waving anti-gun anti-freedom statists.

          Unfortunately, that fairly aptly describes the average New Jersey voter.

      2. avatar Dave says:

        The court won’t even mention the words jury nullification… They’d probably prefer it wasn’t an option for any case. The only way it happens is if someone on the jury knows about it or the jury does it anyway without knowing that it has an official name.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Anonymous wrote, “However, the court will make sure that the jurors selected don’t grasp the understanding of ‘jury nullification’ and the concept of their duties as jurors.”

        This is perhaps the largest problem in the United States right now and a total affront to the concept of due process and a trial with a jury of your peers.

        1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          What was that movie with Will Arnett a few years ago, the main character’s comment was something to the effect of “trial by jury is really, trial by the 12 people who were too stupid to make up an excuse to get out of jury duty”

          We can hope though.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Tex, you called it. A jury of her peers would be 12 single mothers of color who are professionals. Don’t even need to be unemployed. With that she’d be free to go after ten minutes’ deliberation.

    2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      assuming they don’t straight up instruct the jury that they are there not to evaluate the fairness of the law, only whether or not it was broken…which from what i understand can and does happen?

      Anyone who spends more time in court (as a lawyer or otherwise) by all means set me straight on this.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Where I come from, and anywhere that I know about, jurors are specifically instructed to follow and apply the law as written. Further, an inability to do so based on your feelings as to the “fairness” of the law is grounds for exclusion from the jury. And any attempt to specifically argue “jury nullification” is objectionable.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          This is certainly the case in California. It is misconduct for an attorney to argue nullification, and ground for a mistrial. And there is a specific instruction given pretty uniformly that the jurors are to follow the law as set forth in the instructions as they are given to them by the judge. Juror are not to decide questions of law, only questions of fact; the law is the province of the judge.

        2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

          thats what i thought…and in reality this could not be further from how its supposed to be i’m pretty sure.

          A jury should decide if a person deserves to go to jail/prison, that may or may not run concurrent to determining if they broke the law.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        The trial judge can and often does instruct that.

        Ultimately, the jury can find as it will- that is its purpose, after all, as a check. Each member must vote ‘guilty’ for that to be the verdict. If one declines to do so, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Spot on. “Jury nullification” isn’t so much a separate legal doctrine so much as it is a simple recognition that ultimately, the jury has the perogative to render whatever verdict it collectively wants to, whatever happened in court beforehand.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Well, spot on with one caveat: Unanimity is not necessarily required to convict, per SCOTUS, it is a matter for each state to determine. Altho in practice it seems to be pretty universally required.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If this goes to trial, then it would be decided by a subset of New Jersey voters and/or New Jersey drivers, as impressive and scholarly a pool of individuals as those may be, who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

      This woman should get her affairs in order. Not a dime for a defense fund, but perhaps I’ll kick in to buy some t-shirts or bumper stickers that read “Elections have consequences.”

    4. avatar Illinois Minion says:

      An interesting option I have not heard of before this article.

      A breif scan of Wikipedia reveals this dismaying snippet:

      “In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[38]”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

      I am not a lawyer, but have seen them on TV.

    5. avatar Ted says:

      In the 20 years since I turned 18, I have never yet sat on a jury in NJ.

      Why?

      Because in each and every case, I let both prosecuting and defense attorneys know that I will never vote to convict someone under an unjust law.

      It’s as if courts look for jurors that will simply “obey orders”.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        “It’s as if courts look for jurors that will simply ‘obey orders’.”

        That’s exactly what it is: statism at its most sadistic and ruthless.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        You guys are both correct as it stands in MD.
        We’ll give ’em a fair trial and then we’ll hang ’em.

  5. avatar brian says:

    Sorry, nothing will happen because she’s black, and politicians don’t care if black people die because they can’t defend themselves.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      They suddenly do if they’re shot by people who aren’t black.

  6. avatar Anonymous says:

    No – she will be found guilty and have her gun rights stripped away for the following reasons:

    1) She was honest and admitted she was not aware of the requirements of the law in that jurisdiction (it’s OK if police don’t know the law however).
    2) There is no compassion or common sense in government. There is only vote catching bloody shirt waving to satisfy an agenda based on the appearance of being compassionate.
    3) Government employees should be changed frequently and they currently are not. Government employees and diapers both should be changed frequently – and for the same reasons.
    4) NJ politicians lack common sense and NJ law enforcement don’t like to use their brains – but only follow orders and do what they are told.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      You are ASSUMING she was being honest when she claimed ignorance of the permit limitations.

      I have held carry permits from 4 different states in my life (still have two of them), and as a CCW Instructor/test examiner, I have reviewed the requirements for many more. A universal theme that comes through loud and clear is telling the potential pistol-carrier that their permit does NOT enable them to carry everywhere, that it does NOT automatically allow carry in other states (even the ones nearby), and that it is up to YOU to keep track of when and where you are legal to carry and not carry, because it is YOU that will be thrown in jail if you mess-up.

      If she is found guilty, it will probably be because they interviewed others in her permit class and asked if this point was covered, and the answer was a resounding “yes”.

      1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

        What class?

        In PA all you have to do is prove residency and you have an LTCF. That’s the way it should be.

        I do think classes/instruction are a good thing, but it shouldn’t be mandated.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          …and that’s what I get when I ASSUME something. 🙂

          Well, that will make it much easier to claim that she didn’t know. I just reviewed the current PA carry permit application, and it doesn’t doesn’t say anything on there about other state restrictions, either.

          Which is somewhat amazing, given the emphasis used in other states.

          For those of you who posses a PA permit, does it say anything about use in other states on the permit itself? What about on the back of the permit?

        2. avatar DJ9 says:

          I figured out where I picked up the info that she had attended a class and/or been trained; it was in an article over at Ammoland dot com. I won’t put the link here (because it will send this post into the never-never land of Moderation), but you can find it by Google searching for “PA carry permit”, clicking the images tab, and looking on the first page or so for the picture of Shaneen Allen’s carry permit, then using that link to go to the article. Partial quote:

          “Despite the fact that Shaneen Allen possesses a License to Carry Firearms issued by the City of Philadelphia…

          Despite the fact that Allen has been trained in firearm safety and passed an NRA handgun safety course…

          Despite the fact that Allen voluntarily presented her carry license to the police in conjunction with a routine traffic stop, as per her training…

          New Jersey is doing its best to turn Shaneen Allen into a convicted felon facing a State Prison term of a minimum-mandatory 3-5 years with no chance of parole.”

        3. avatar John says:

          @DJ9 There is no indication on the LTCF itself that the license is not valid in other states. It contains nothing but (essentially) the same biographical information as a driver’s license.

        4. avatar DJ9 says:

          Thanks for the response, John!

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Honesty or not regarding the permit limitations is not the question of topic, but rather the rationale of the the implementation of the law to begin with. That is the question posed by Robert. Honestly, I don’t care if she was honest or not. The crime has no victim – it’s a nanny/sheeple law. After all, we all need to be audited, groomed, and kept by the gov, and certainly need to keep all our permits in order.

        Please permit me to work on my house.
        Please permit me to install a swimming pool in my back yard.
        Please permit me to shoot that deer.
        Please permit me to catch that fish.
        Please permit me to drive that car.
        Please permit me to open my store.
        Please permit that electrician to work on my house.
        Please permit me to carry this gun.

        After all, we love to ask permission for things.

      3. avatar rlc2 says:

        Are you assuming she was NOT honest? That it was a simple mistake?
        Based on what? Watch the NRA video I linked to below.

  7. avatar James says:

    I doubt it. The main stream media will not cover this much for fear of how sympathetic the accused would be. Highly educated black mother of 2 working in healthcare, they don’t dare give her wider exposure in this case. The fence sitters will never know this case when down, while the antis will say she should be thrown in prison because she’s a gun owner. It would be nice for this case to be a wake up call, but it won’t penetrate much outside the pro and anti camps, mostly because the antis want her trial on the down low.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      > it won’t penetrate much outside the pro and anti camps

      I would agree except for one important wildcard:

      The governor of New Jersey will probably be running for president in two years. This case will be an issue.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        “The governor of New Jersey will probably be running for president in two years. This case will be an issue.”

        Good point. This doesn’t look good for Christie at any angle.

  8. avatar ShaunL. says:

    Sadly, It will likely show only those who already knew exactly WHAT they already knew.

    Serious discussion can only happen when rational people are willing to see the facts instead of the feelings involved.

    Also…. I hope I’m wrong.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    This case should be the catalyst that gets national reciprocity moving. Minority single mom just wanting to protect herself being completely railroaded by victimless bureaucratic non-crime legislation. If she were arrested for not having an NJ driver’s license parts of the state would be on fire and the politicians would be targeted for ridicule by every pundit and comedian the airwaves could hold.

    But alas, GUN!, so her situation will be ignored by every minority single mother supporting org/group/politician and she’ll be mighty lucky to get out of this without any permanent harm done to her or her children.

    I can drive my two ton killing machine responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year anywhere I want to but if my IDPA bag happens to be in the trunk oh lordy lord I’m in trouble.

  10. Shouldn’t Mothers Demand Action be speaking up on her behalf, praising her for being such a protective mother for her children?

    Oh, wait…never mind.

    She can’t afford to hire armed tough guys like Shannon.

    1. avatar John M. says:

      Paul, you’ve got a great point here. After all, they keep saying they support the 2nd Amendment. Wouldn’t this be a great place for both of the Moms to speak up and demand the charges be dropped?

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Just a thought, if she’s convicted and a certain governor from New Jersey thinks he’s going to run for the Republican nomination for president, it would be wise of him to pardon Ms. Allen. The pardon would probably draw more attention than the ‘crime’ and trial.

    It all comes down the what the media wants to push, but it should also be noted that the old media is losing it’s standing more because of it’s poor track record at reporting the news in an unbiased fashion than because people can now get their news on their i-phone. The more time passes the less they matter.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      They never pardon cases like these. The gov would commute. It’s the politically correct wishy washy way to say the punishment isnt fair but she still violated glorious and holy New Jersey law.

      So she’ll still be a felon and still lose her right (privilege) to defend herself with a firearm.

      The politicians look at it is as win/win and the victim lives as a felon with all the baggage included.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Not only that, but he’d probably wait until all the appeals are finished which would put off her commutation until sometime in 2020, after she’d already served her 3 1/2 years in prison.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        I agree that this the most likely outcome, especially in light of the outcome of a similar case in which a young man moved from Colorado back home to New Jersey so as to be closer to his kids after his wife left him. He left his parents home one evening, and his mother, concerned about his mental wellbeing, called the police. He was pulled over in his car, and when his trunk was searched, he was found to be in possession of firearms not registered in New Jersey and for which he had no permit (notwithstanding the fact that the firearms were carried compliance with the federal safe harbor). to make matters worse, he had hollow point ammo. He was convicted of the felonies and shipped off to prison. While an appeal was pending, Good Governor Christy commuted his sentence, but pointedly declined to pardon.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Agreed. Gov. Christie has experience with confronting his state’s draconian firearms laws and the innocent lives they ruin. Check out the case of Brian Aitken.

        In very broad strokes, he’s a guy who moved from Colorado to New Jersey to be closer to his son, whose mother had custody. He went well above and beyond the call of compliance in his travels with his three firearms, but owing to one fateful 911 hangup call his mother made and instantly regretted, he ended up arrested and convicted for firearms violations. He ended up serving a year or so in a New Jersey dungeon before Christie gave in to civil rights pleas and commuted his sentence.

        You’re right, though, all that commutation does is end the sentence early. It does not reverse or vacate the conviction. Officially, commutation is an “act of grace”, or mercy, on the State’s part. It’s not at all an admission that you were innocent all along or that the law itself was unjust to begin with.

        Best thing this lady can hope for is to spend a reduced amount of time in a New Jersey dungeon, be released to live life as a convicted felon stripped of firearms and other rights, never work in a responsible occupation again, and *maybe* be able to see her kids, a couple of times per year, under state agency supervision.

        I’d sooner live in Pyongyang than within pissing distance of a place like California, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey or D.C.

  12. avatar borg says:

    Gun control has racist roots this case simply makes it more overtly racist.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Do you think they wouldn’t have arrested a white? Hint: Google ‘Brian Aitken’.

  13. avatar dwb says:

    It certainly has the potential. But it’s not really a game changer until Sharpton and the ACLU gets involved in the war on black single mothers trying to protect themselves.

    What are they doing anyway? Oh yeah, protesting in Ferguson about a black kid killed by militarized police. A situation that they enable by telling people to rely on militarized police for protection.

  14. avatar Don says:

    She will be convicted because she did break the (draconian but ineffectual against real criminals) laws of New Jersey.
    Chris Christie will wave the Governors pen over her with a pardon or some other political trick to help him with the black vote, gun owners, and anybody else with any common sense, thereby killing three birds of a different feather with one stone. Pretty good trick.

  15. avatar Mike in NC says:

    While I usually despise legislation named after individuals, I would love to see a National Reciprocity Act called “Shaneen’s Law”.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

      Every state in the union is perfectly free to enact its own bilateral, multilateral or even unilateral reciprocity agreements right now. If power already rests with the states, you generally want to avoid federal involvement. Obviously there will be exceptions, so this is just a general approach.

      With the states, it really is just with the stroke of a pen that they can recognize other states’ permits. The laws allowing such and granting recognition authority to their AG or Director of State Police already exist, so you already know what you’re dealing with. With federal involvement, you’d need an entire bill to pass both houses and be signed by the gun grabber-in-chief. Aside from their vehement opposition to that, let’s go ahead and assume a GOP held Congress and White House. All that such a bill would require, literally, is perhaps a single paragraph of text; maybe even a single sentence. When’s the last time an important federal bill consisted of a single paragraph?

      After all, it took how many hundreds (thousands?) of pages in Obamacare, when a single sentence of “It shall be law that the entire healthcare system of the United States will be more expensive, more restrictive and overall FUBAR than before” would have sufficed?

      Any federal reciprocity bill passed by Congress would be so lengthy and vague and riddled with ridiculousness of circular and conflicting provisions, trade-offs, set-backs, exceptions, exemptions, and carve outs that it would probably end up unrecognizable and orphaned by its own sponsors and regretted by firearms freedom advocates.

      Better just to leave it to the states and work to establish reciprocity state-by-state. In the meantime, just don’t even visit the tyrannical regimes.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        You mean, like this one?
        https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908

        Dirty Harry is sitting on it, of course.

  16. avatar C says:

    Never volunteer information when confronted by police.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Officer, I don’t answer questions.
      Here is my license and registration.
      Am I being detained or am I free to go?
      Officer, I don’t answer questions.
      I don’t have to put my window down all the way – however out of courtesy I will for you.
      Officer, I don’t answer questions.
      Am I being detained or am I free to go?
      No, I do not consent to any searches.
      Am I being detained or am I free to go?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        All peachy except I don’t know where people thought of the ‘window’ game… because on a traffic stop you have to get out of the car if ordered.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Because of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, you do have to get out of your car – but you don’t have to put your window down all the way. Similarly, if the officer wanted you to tune into 98.9 on the radio, snap your fingers while singing him a song, turn up the air conditioning, or perform an Arnold Schwarzenegger front side chest pose you don’t have to perform these activities either.

    2. avatar DJ9 says:

      I am not specifically familiar with PA concealed-carry law, but I do know that some states require legal carriers to notify law enforcement immediately of their armed status if they are stopped while carrying. In those states, it is a violation of the law and/or permit conditions to NOT “volunteer” this info.

      1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

        I don’t think PA has that requirement.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          You’re correct, but it sounds like she had taken some generic/non-state-specific pistol carry class, and part of that class had included notifying cops of armed status, if stopped. See the article at Ammoland dot com (I won’t link to it here out of courtesy, and to keep the link from automatically sending this post into the Moderation queue).

        2. avatar Jason in PA says:

          @ mark_anthony- Your are correct, In PA you have no legal requirement to inform a LEO that you have a gun in car. That being said Philadelphia just settled a case in which they agreed not to instruct people that the opposite is true. So it is very likely that she thought she had a duty to inform the officer.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Duty to inform can be even more nuanced than that. For example, in Texas, up until three or four years ago, licensed carriers had a duty to inform police if they were carrying at that moment, whether while driving or not. Interestingly, non-licensed individuals had no duty to inform police they were armed in their vehicles, as driving with a concealed firearm, but without a license, is legal.

        Recently, though, the law has changed to decriminalize failure to inform on the part of a licensed carrier. Technically, you still must inform the officer, but the criminal penalty for failing to do so has been removed. It’s all largely moot anyway, as your carry license is connected to your drivers license, which is connected to your vehicle registration, in the state’s database. So an officer already knows you’re licensed to carry, providing you’re stopped in your own vehicle.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          It SHOULD be a moot point in ANY case, as any law enforcement officer in this day and age that DOESN’T assume every single person s/he contacts has the POTENTIAL to be armed is an incompetent idiot.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Perhaps the best practical lesson that can be learned from this case.

  17. avatar Sammy says:

    A prime example as why we should not confuse the legal system with a justice system. I truly sympathize with the lady and would contribute to a defense fund. But, if the law is not the law when we disagree with it the law may not be the law when we agree with it. The ignoring of immigration law is my case in point. Legislating from the bench is also unacceptable. Sorry. The best outcome, in my opinion, would be an unfortunate trial and if convicted a suspended sentence.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      This isn’t just “us” disagreeing with the law. NJ law directly violates the Constitutional protection of “keeping and bearing” arms. Citizens have the duty to ignore it, or at least nullify it at trial.

      1. avatar Alpo says:

        Well said.

        The “law” is unlawful when it contradicts the constitution.

        1. avatar Sammy says:

          I do not disagree in spirit with you guys. I live within eyesight of the PRNJ. I avoid going there even though it is mostly just a drive through for me. But it is their law. Their citizens are endorsing it by not repealing it. I agree, when unconstitutional or oppressive legislation is signed into law it only serves to corrupt the society. NJ will remain a corrupt entity as long as these laws are in effect. Pa cannot expect NJ to honor it’s CCPs anymore than NJ can expect to enforce their absurd mag limits here.

  18. avatar Scrubula says:

    I hope so. Some honest people don’t realize that half of the gun control laws are designed to trap innocent people.

  19. avatar Jared says:

    I wonder why the NJ police don’t have a zero tolerance on enforcing the Federal Gun Free Schools act against LEOSA carriers.

    So many NJ cops are cross designated with the BATFE so they could enforce it.

    All the more reason SCOTUS should have granted cert for Drake.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    This is a lose-lose. Either Shaneen will be convicted and go to jail or she’ll be acquitted and Chris Christie will once again shut down the George Washington Bridge.

  21. avatar Alpo says:

    To quote NJ anti-gun zealot Bryan Miller:
    “Fortunately, the notoriety of this case will make it less likely Pennsylvanians will carry concealed and loaded handguns in New Jersey, thereby making them and the Garden State safer from gun violence,”

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Fortunately, the notoriety of this case will make it less likely Pennsylvanians will carry concealed and loaded handguns in New Jersey, thereby making them and the Garden State safer from gun violence,”

      Right, because the good people who have concealed carry licenses (e.g. no criminal record) are the ones shooting up our towns … not the violent criminal gang-bangers that we thought might be involved. How stupid can one be?

      1. avatar Alpo says:

        Miller’s not stupid, he’s an vile, heartless opportunist- http://old.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030818newsmaker0818p4.asp

  22. avatar JaxD says:

    She not only faces a mandatory 3 1/2 years for the gun, but also, 11 additional years for hollow point bullets. They call this justice?

  23. avatar Alpo says:

    BTW, the judge and prosecutor denied her entry into pretrial intervention (PTI), a program for first-time non-violent offenders of victimless crimes.

    Same judge and prosecutor granted PTI to Ray Rice for beating his fiance unconcious then dragging her limp body from on elevator on camera. http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/05/ravens_rb_ray_rice_accepted_into_diversion_program_report_says.html

    Expect no justice in NJ.

    1. avatar borg says:

      The fact that this judge and this prosecutor allowed Ray Rice into pretrial intervention (PTI) and yet refuse to do the same for this woman tends to indicate that the judge and prosecutor are sexists and/or were bribed and last time I checked gender discrimination and/or taking bribes is illegal and I believe that she could claim if convicted that her rights to equal protection were violated since she was not granted the same options that Ray Rice was granted despite especially since her offense was non-violent as compared to Ray Rice.

  24. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    I’ve had a permit from both Bucks and Montgomery counties (suburban Philly) and each time they warned not to carry into NY, NJ.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Curious: who provided the warning, and when in the permitting process did you receive it?

      1. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

        In my case, it was the Sherriff’s deputy, verbal warning: This is for concealed carry only, in PA only. Not NJ, not DE – OH, and while it covers Philly, your best off not carrying in Philly, because they will give you a seriously hard time.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          Sounds like good advice, and sounds like they need to print something similar on the back of the permit (all but the Philly part, anyway…).

    2. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

      Me too. They also warned me not to carry in Philly city limits. While it’s not ‘illegal’, the Cops will break your stones none the less. I hate cities anyway, so avoid it at all costs. And as for Jersey? Well that is just the armpit of America. Total cess pool. I think we should just plow the whole place over and start again.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        No such specific warnings from the Chester County Sheriff. However, one of the instructors in my local NRA personal protection course (who, incidentally, is a cop), warned us about NJ, and that you were much better off carrying concealed in Philly. I CC in Philly almost every day. So far, no issues. But then, I’m just one more working stiff in Khakis and a polo shirt. It’s good to be the invisible man, in most cases.

        As to this case, I wish it would force some people into thinking how crazy the NJ laws are, but as long as most of their voters believe that every person with a gun is either a cop or a crook, nothing will change.

  25. avatar JaxD says:

    Meanwhile, according to the NY Daily News:
    Data published by the government in May of this year revealed that the Homeland Security Department released 36,007 convicted criminal immigrants in 2013 who are facing deportation, including those accounting for 193 homicide and 426 sexual assault convictions. The immigrants nearly all still face deportation and are required to check in with immigration authorities while their deportation cases are pending.

  26. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This case will accomplish nothing. It is obvious now that our courts are a charade operated to pacify good people who will avoid violent change as long as the courts appear to be functioning.

    I am not simply spouting off here. Look at recent events:

    — D.C. judge says current D.C. firearm laws are unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. And another judge issues a stay which enables D.C. police to continue to enforce laws that the court just said were unconstitutional.
    — Attorney Alan Gura has to petition court multiple times over the course of multiple years to issue a ruling on case heard several years ago.
    — U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear New Jersey concealed carry case and resolve split in Appellate courts.
    — Federal judge in Maryland rules that military style semi-automatic rifles are not in common use and upholds ban on said rifles.

    I could go on but I hope you get the point. Sure, courts throw us a minor bone here and there to keep up appearances. When it comes down to monumentally important decisions, however, the courts uphold the state every time. And why wouldn’t they since they are part of the state?!?!?!

    1. avatar ShaunL. says:

      I agree to a point but it seems(to me) lately like the courts are being forced to give more than they’re taking because of the massive increase in 2A awareness/support.

  27. avatar soccerdad1150 says:

    While I hope the answer to the questions of “will it be the big one?” is a resounding yes, the law-abiding, researching, training and preparing side of me thinks she is getting what she deserves, i.e. some sort of legal hassle for breaking the laws of another state. That said, I think a GD prison term is completely and utterly inappropriate, so that is why i hope this is “the big one’. If you get an LTCF in PA, or anywhere, it is incumbent upon you to understand all the laws that apply, when you can and cannot carry, where, etc. Sorry, ignorance of a law is not an excuse, and ignorance of a gun law is simply negligent. negligence should have some consequences.

    1. avatar Alpo says:

      The PTI program, which she was denied but Ray Rice was allowed into, would carry such consequences:
      Fines, fees, community service forfeiture of the firearm in question and 1-3 years of probation supervision during which she would not be allowed to own or possess a firearm.
      Only after she did all of that would the charge be dismissed.

      For what amounts to a mistake of law with no criminal intent, that seems like punishment enough.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Specific criminal intent is not an element of the crimes of possession of a firearm without a license, or possession of hollow point bullets, or carrying a loaded weapon. “General intent” is established merely by proof that she knew she was in possession of these items.

        1. avatar Alpo says:

          Yeah, which is why the charge can’t just be thrown out altogether.

          But PTI is designed for defendants who are guilty (though no such admission is required) and who it is believed would benefit from diversion into a supervisory program rather than be subjected to traditional prosecution.

          Shaneen Allen is the perfect PTI candidate. See NJ Judiciary’s PTI guidelines:
          Guideline 1
          The purposes of pretrial intervention are:

          (a) To provide defendants with opportunities to avoid ordinary prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services, when such services can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior by the defendant, and when there is an apparent causal connection between the offense charged and the rehabilitative need, without which cause both the alleged offense and the need to prosecute might not have occurred.

          (b) To provide an alternative to prosecution for defendants who might be harmed by the imposition of criminal sanctions as presently administered, when such an alternative can be expected to serve as sufficient sanction to deter criminal conduct.

          (c) To provide a mechanism for permitting the least burdensome form of prosecution possible for defendants charged with “victimless” offenses.

          (d) To assist in the relief of presently overburdened criminal calendars in order to focus expenditure of criminal justice resources on matters involving serious criminality and severe correctional problems.

          (e) To deter future criminal or disorderly behavior by a defendant/participant in pretrial intervention.

    2. avatar Albaniaaaaaaaaa says:

      NJ is violating the constitution. She broke no legitimate laws. Simple as that.

    3. avatar Chris says:

      “Sorry, ignorance of a law is not an excuse”

      Bullshit. You can barely take a shit in this country without retaining the services of a lawyer. And they like it that way.

      George Carlin had it right (Ten Commandments): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8

  28. avatar rlc2 says:

    Great point Alpo. Here is an NRA video on youtube that does a good job of laying out the facts, without spin.
    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?list=UUZr49eSL2aHQ_41476IrkbA&v=v6SIH5ZsKTo

    This case needs to be elevated to get more visibilty with middle of the road, and independent moderates, because it speaks to several themes, that are simply comon-sense, and also body blows at the conventional progtard wisdom, particularly in 2A rights.

    And if you care about any of these, you can help by sending a link, a like, an email to friends and family. Maybe even Everytown, or regional blogs for MDA. Why aren’t they helping this Mom?

    1. Political hypocrisy and War On Women: Why does a black NFL star qualify for the pre-trial intervention program, to get out of Aggravated Assault charges, after beating his girlfriend,

    vs a black single working mom who legally obtains a ccw in pa, AFTER TWICE BEING VICTIM of criminals in philly, detained and locked up for 47 days in jail, after simply and honestly she is carrying same gun in purse, during a routine traffic stop in NJ, is denied same pti program?

  29. avatar Pascal says:

    She will convicted, Christie will help get her out due to public opinion and others calling for her release, but she will remain a felon because of the hollow point bullets and will never ever be able to carry a gun again.

    That is the best scenario. Nothing else will happen — because NJ.

  30. avatar MarkPA says:

    PotG, THIS is IT! We will never have a more sympathetic case to bring to the uncommitted voters. I spoke with a very progressive neighbor lady (actively concerned with women’s issues). She was visibly moved by Shaneen’s case. If she was moved, I think most uncommitted voters would be moved. Progressives would have a hard time arguing why she should rot in prison for 3+ years leaving 2 young children without their mother.
    – – – First, I pray that her case will be deferred, she will be acquitted, or that Christi will pardon her (not merely commute her sentence).
    – – – Failing any of the above, I pray that Shaneen’s case (as prepared by her lawyer, Evan Nappen) and SAS.com will find strong grounds for appeal, through NJSC and then to Federal Appeals (which will sustain) then to SCOTUS. It is up to us – the PotG – to contribute to fund this litigation. Particularly now, in the early stages, we have to fund her trial so that Nappen can fund the effort needed to set-up the best grounds for appeal. (It’s hard to raise an argument in an appeal for which you neglected to lay the ground-work at trial.) I have contributed $100 to Shaneen’s account and I urge readers of this forum to do so as well. http://www.EvanNappen.com
    – – – Simultaneously with pressing an appeal, the 40 free states need to pressure their Congressmen to pass a national reciprocity bill; and, naming it Shaneen’s Law is fitting both politically and to honor a martyr rotting in a NJ prison for our cause. Shaneen’s case should serve as ideal cover for most Senators and Representatives to justify their vote to their constituents who might have reservations. WE the PotG must make it clear to both our Senators and our Representative that we will hold them accountable for getting this bill passed and over-riding Obama’s veto.
    – – – In the final analysis, a National Reciprocity law is NOT ENOUGH. What Congress giveth; a subsequent Congress will taketh-away. I have submitted a proposal to TTAG (not yet published) that we PotG consider pushing – through our respective State legislatures – a call for an Article V convention to draft a Right-to-Carry bill to secure that right without a requirement to prove “need”. Observe that there are now 40 Shall-Issue+CC States, 2 more than are necessary to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. That is 6 more than required to force Congress to call a convention. IMO, a serious drive for such an amendment would inspire Congress to pass a National Reciprocity Act or SCOTUS to take a Won’t-Issue case. Each of these branches of government would prefer to retain control over the Constitution. The very LAST thing they would want is for the States to exert their Constitutional power through an Article V convention.
    – – – Most Washington legislators’ votes are available to the highest bidder; and, it’s a high price to pay to line up the number of votes in each chamber. A State legislator’s ear can be grabbed for a much more modest price. In most cases, we need only sit in his district office until he understands that we aren’t leaving until he gets the message. Most of these legislatures have already heard from us; that’s why they passed Shall-Issue laws and amended them to strengthen the right to carry. For these reasons, I actually think that it may be easier to achieve our goal through a credible threat of an Article V convention as compared to any direct petition to Washington. Washington will lead the way when their power is threatened by the States.

  31. avatar rlc2 says:

    Why is the StateRunMedia, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, Huffpo, Slate,MJ, and various lower echelons of the progressive PR machine ignoring this obvious example of the War On Women?
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CWlKXjTF0Ys

    Could it be it doesn’t the narrative? Is loss of her job, her kids, her freedom, for a single black woman not important enough, compared to Obama’s under the radar gun control agenda?

    Why…I’d conclude the Left is…raaaCsist!

    What about Eric Holders politically racialized DOJ…you know the guy who is proud to be known as an activist?
    But not for a woman?

    Why, in the progtard logic that informs MDA it means…Holder is a….misogynist!

  32. avatar rlc2 says:

    3. Legally, this case has a sympathetic victim, that could go all the way to SCOTUS, for a simple common-sense example for national reciprocity for CCW.

    I hope groups like USCARRY are paying attention. As are women in California, for the Democrats there are holding up your simple comon sense right to self defense, as the justification for ccw permit, thanks to the willful obstruction of the law, by the ambitious Democrat State AG Kamala Harris.

    My question for single black women in Oakland, and white sorority girls in Santa Barbara, an Asian women in San Francisco is simple: Does the Democratic Party, and the corrupt hacks in Sacramento REALLY care about your safety? Do you REALLY believe more laws to disarm the law abiding, including you, wil stop the law breakers from obtaining guns, or knives, or simply using their fists, to victimize you?

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      There is no way this is going to Scotus. There is no precedent for ‘national reciprocity’ (don’t say driver’s licenses, it’s not!) and there no way this court would take that step. Anyone believing in state’s rights would agree. As to the question of whether one can carry outside the home, the court may take that up, but not here; instead it will take it up when someone is denied a permit, rather than simply carries without one.

      1. avatar borg says:

        SCOTUS could take it up as a case involving the right to bear arms.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        Why is the driver’s license reciprocity not a precedent?

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    This IS turning into”a” big one. I’ve seen it all over Fox, I think 700 club(ACLJ) and even the nightly MSM. Keep up THAT photo too. The Ray Rice football thug angle needs to be known by everyone too.
    I’m acutely aware as I live in Illinois and there’s NO reciprocity a mile away in Indiana. 47days in jail is more than enough for this woman.

  34. avatar Hannibal says:

    Mandatory sentencing laws and strict gun control combine to give us this. Does NJ feel safe yet?

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Does going through a TSA checkpoint make you feel safer? It is all security theater.

      The mandatory sentencing is BS so that prosecutors do not have to go to court. They use it as a hammer for plea bargains. The prosecutor should be required to prove intent, if they cannot, then the judge should have the discretion to throw out the mandatory sentencing.

      The argument prosecutors in the case are using is that it is a “deterrence” — they are full of crap, because guns flow over to the NJ border daily. What it is and has always been, is security theater and playing to liberal base as the AG seeks higher office.

  35. avatar BDub says:

    Shaneen Allen should be the face on every single promo for Constitutional Carry.

    1. avatar JohnnyDoe says:

      Why finally start with Miss Allen, though?

      Nobody batted an eyelash when Plaxico Burress was carrying a gun in NYC and shot himself and got put away for packing.

      I get that everyone hears “SINGLE MOTHER!” with two babydaddies and all the white knights come running out and they all forget about gender equality, but still…

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Let’s see: Plax had a negligent discharge inside of a crowded club, that fortunately for those near him only injured himself. Allen was merely lawfully carrying her firearm and drove into the wrong state, endangering – much less injuring – nobody.

  36. avatar LJM says:

    Where are all the civil rights leaders who trumpeted the Trayvon Martin shooting? That is what I ask.

    We as people of the gun should flood this mother with support. Get 10-15k protesters to march on the courthouse when this shame of a case comes to trial.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      uh, they are in Ferguson, MO competing for the camera and media attention as most divisive race hustler.

  37. avatar borg says:

    I wonder if a lawyer could claim that the prosecutor and/or judge conspired to deprive her of her rights by refusing to allow (PTI) Conspiracy to deprive of rights is a felony under federal law when 2 or more individuals conspire to deprive a person or persons of their rights.

  38. avatar ArtM says:

    IMHO, the primary reason she is having this trouble is because Americans, for too many generations, have lacked the knowledge that Law is the handmaiden of Justice. Justice is the ultimate. The Law is supposed to be merely a tool to help achieve Justice.

    Government at all levels in the US have made Law sacred – forgetting the very concept of Justice. In doing so, they are able to pass any law they want, and they do so, to control, rape, and plunder the people in the US – and around the world.

    In a republic (the way the US was originally set up), the government is to make no laws on an individual, his property, or his conduct, as long as that individual does not forcibly interfere in/on other people’s lives or property. In other words, no victim, no law to break. But people can’t be controlled that way … nor can one get a great job by legal theft … and the do-gooders can’t create Utopia without telling everyone what’s good for them, and then forcing them to do it and pay for it, of course. So, the very concept of Justice is slowly destroyed by the erosion of time and small step laws, until that is all that’s left. The Law. Doesn’t matter if it is just or unjust, right or wrong, honest or deceitful, moral or depraved, or anything else. It’s “The Law,” and that is all that matters. After all, it’s for the children …

    And that, my friends and foes, is why this country is well on its way to Hell in a handbasket. Justice is Dead. If you are grabbed by “The Law,” your only real hope is Good Lady Luck.

  39. avatar Ralph says:

    Advice for anyone traveling to New Jersey: Leave the gun; take the gas mask.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      And the cannoli.

  40. avatar Another Robert says:

    If I ever start travelling again, I’m going to make sure every road map I use has a big red circle drawn around New Jersey…

  41. avatar lizzrd says:

    I don’t see this being an important case at all. Sure, it’s getting some media attention, but she clearly (and admittedly) violated another state’s laws. It might inspire some corrective legislation, but I doubt it will get far with the courts.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      According to her lawyer, Evan Nappen, she has 2 defenses:
      – an ignorance of the law or mistake statute; and,
      – an amnesty period of 180 days that coincided with the date of her infraction
      It remains to be seen whether the judge will allow these defenses to be articulated before the jury.
      – – – You should understand that the British/American tradition tends to require a mens rea – guilty mind – to be convicted of a felony. It is only a relatively recent shift (about 50 – 60 years) that American “jurisprudence” has tolerated “strict liability” for serious offenses. I.e., that having committed a prohibited act absent a guilty mind you can be found guilty. If you are of a really Progressive mind then – of course – you would approve of giving legislatures the power to make many crimes “strict liability” to deny a defendant’s claim and evidence that he acted withOUT a guilty mind. That makes it much easier for the government to find a violation and imprison whomsoever they need to get out of the way. Conversely, if you were of a more libertarian bent, suspicious of government motives, you might want to reconsider the strong tradition of mens rea (guilty mind) to find a defendant guilty.

  42. avatar Fuque says:

    They are gonna hang that chick from the highest tree… I dont think NJ residence have the will to go Jury null… they like their shackles.

  43. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    Ok i was just pulled over by the arizona highway patrol for doing 88 in a 65 (i almost never break 80 but it was a situation where i was getting on 1 exit, getting off the next, and just never really let off the gas…my bad).

    He asked for my documents, i informed him i had a loaded glock 19 in the center console (With deadly cop killing hollow points no less..15 of them!)
    He took the pistol while he ran my info.
    Returned, let me off with a WARNING, gave me back my pistol, and i drove off.

    Oh my lord Arizona >>>>>>> NJ!!! They respect our right to bear arms AND don’t view us just as a source of revenue…you would probably never get a warning for 88 in a 65 back home..unless you were in a cops family.

  44. avatar jason says:

    This is why I triple check that the state I am traveling to will respect my permit. If it doesn’t, my guns are going in the trunk and I do not inform I have guns at a stop and even if asked, I state that I am not from this state and I plead the 5th.

  45. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I really feel for Shaneen Allen, but I am afraid she is going to get hosed to make an example.

  46. avatar borg says:

    The supreme court has in prior cases stated that an unconstitutional law is in fact no law even if it has the appearance of the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any that violates it is invalid and the jury should vote not guilty since they could easily find themselves in a similar situation if the forgot to take the hunting rifle out of their duffel before bringing it for another trip.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Absolutely true; however, until SCOTUS actually takes a specific case and rules on that specific fact situation, this principle has no practical effect. Heller and McDonald each ruled on the facts of an outright prohibition of a handgun in the home. What is not obvious to us (non-Constitutional lawyers) is that the rationale for the ruling isn’t necessarily controlling; only the ruling is controlling. This is acutely important to us w/r/t 2A.
      – – – The Antis like to point to the militia rationale in Miller. However, that rationale is not controlling; only the decision is controlling. The decision said practically nothing except to return the case to the court that tried the facts.
      – – – We like to point out that Heller and McDonald laid out a strong rationale for the individual right to both keep and to bear arms. The Antis insist that the only thing Heller and McDonald ruled was that neither the Federal nor State governments can flatly prohibit handguns in the home. Long-guns, assault weapons etc. in the home are at most undecided. Any regulation short of an outright ban is undecided.
      – – – Unless and until SCOTUS is ready to accept another case and make another narrow ruling, we can’t expect relief under the principle of unconstitutional law is void. If we wait long enough we may accumulate enough SCOTUS rulings to substantially close-the-book on the 2A civil rights struggle. The fight is worth-while; but it is fragile. The 2A dangles on the thread of Justice Kennedy’s whim. Lose him or one of the conservative justices and this avenue is cut-off for another lifetime.
      – – – The PotG need also pursue their Congressmen and an Article V convention.

  47. avatar Aaron says:

    I just sent this message to my congressman and one senator:

    Dear Senator Xx,

    recently a person named Shaneen Allen was arrested in New Jersey for carrying a concealed weapon, even though she is licensed to do so in Pennsylvania. The same judge and district attorney who sent Ray Rice into a diversion program that keeps him out of jail after knocking out his wife are prosecuting Ms. Allen, who faces a mandatory 42 months in jail.

    This is an obscenity. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Allen’s constitutional rights are recognized. Across one river, Allen is a felon.

    The same Kafka-esque absurdity applies to Virginia concealed carry permit holders who cross the Potomac into Maryland.

    State laws which deny the Constitutional right to bear arms do not reduce crime. No one would say that Newark or Trenton New Jersey are safer because Allen can not defend herself.

    These oppressive state laws require a Federal response. No state could pass a law that violated the 19th amendment, yet states abetted by biased courts do exactly that to the 2nd. New Jersey could not pass a law that denies Pennsylvanians their 1st amendment rights, but they deny them their 2nd amendment rights.

    As a law-abiding XX concealed carry permit holder, my rights should not end at the borders of some states.

    I urge you to introduce a national concealed carry law, or at the very least, a national reciprocity law for state permits. There is nothing magical about the Delaware or Potomac rivers that obviates the Constitution.

    Thanks for your time.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email