Thursday, September 25, 2014

Shaneen Allen Catches a Break

Shaneen Allen. ( ALEJANDRO A. ALVAREZ / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER )

philly dot com

After a review by the state attorney general, the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office announced Wednesday that it would allow a Philadelphia woman charged last year with illegally bringing into New Jersey a gun that was legally registered in Pennsylvania to enter a pretrial-intervention program and avoid jail time.
McClain said in a statement Wednesday that, in applying factors set out in the Attorney General's Office review, he had "determined that the defendant in this case should be offered the opportunity to be admitted into the Atlantic County PTI program," and that within the next few weeks, his office would review similar pending cases.

The Office of the Attorney General on Wednesday issued to McClain a clarification of the 2008 Graves Act directive that deals with circumstances in which an out-of-state resident holds a valid permit to carry a firearm within his or her own home state, is arrested in New Jersey, and is charged with illegal possession of a firearm under New Jersey law.

In the clarification, issued by acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman, it was noted that in most of these cases, "imprisonment is neither necessary nor appropriate to serve the interests of justice and protect public safety."

It's kinda funny that after all the whining and crying about unfair treatment by the gun-rights fanatics, including the bizarre exaggeration of Colion Noir, the poor persecuted Shaneen Allen isn't going to be so persecuted after all. Kurt Hofmann used language like "the ruination of this black woman's life, and the lives of her two black children," bringing race into it where no one else had.  Now, it seems, all that hysterical shrieking was a bit premature.

Another odd note is that whenever I condemn one of their fellow gun owners for misuse or negligence too quickly, they scream and yell about the need for a lengthy investigation before jumping to conclusions.  But, in this case, long before the review by the State Attorny Gereral had been completed, favorably for the accused as it turns out, they were condemning those responsible in the most extreme language possible.

Inconsistency and hypocrisy, that's their thing.

And, mark my words, rather than an admission of any kind, these gun-rights fanatics will actually take credit for the decision.  Just watch. In their typical and narcissistic delusional way, these guys will claim that the final decision came BECAUSE of their screaming and yelling and stomping of feet, as if the authorities in Atlantic City, New Jersey are following every word they write on the internet.

I applaud the Atlantic City Prosecutor's Office for its reversal of the earlier decision. I've been opposed to the extreme punishment of jail time for Ms. Allen from the beginning.  It's good to see the system working properly.

One final question: compare the above picture of Ms. Allen to the earlier one. See the difference?

55 comments:

  1. I've been opposed to the extreme punishment of jail time for Ms. Allen from the beginning.

    Yeah--I saw how eloquently you expressed your opposition to her threatened fate. Let's see--where was that? Oh, yeah--precisely nowhere, ever.

    But anyway, decency wins, and evil loses. It even happens occasionally in New Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about the title of this post? Did you miss it?

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/09/colion-noir-gets-one-right-except-for.html

      There were several comments too in which I said she should not do time, which I suppose you conveniently missed.

      Delete
    2. There were several comments too in which I said she should not do time, which I suppose you conveniently missed.

      Help me out, then, Mikeb, and show me three or four of these "several comments." I just went through the entire comment thread again, and couldn't find one. The closest I found, and it ain't very close, is:

      The outrage which is appropriate is - not the superficially exaggerated pretense of Colion, and absolutely not the glib nonsense you come up with ("the ruination of this black woman's life"), but simple and clear denunciation of the disparity of the McClain handling of the two cases in question.

      I took that to mean not that Ms. Allen's fate was too harsh, but that Ray Rice's was not harsh enough, and I interpreted the title of that post the same way. You can deny that if you want, but if you do, you should probably address something else you said in the very same comment:

      Actually Kurt, no outrage at all is appropriate in the case of the poor persecuted mother-of-the-year and newest NRA poster child. None. The only appropriate thing is the demand that she he held accountable for her actions.

      Oh, yeah--that sounds just like "she shouldn't do time."

      Delete
    3. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/07/the-newest-nra-poster-child-shaneen.html?showComment=1406359288124#c8972300046471683957

      "I agree a month in jail is more than enough for what she did."

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/07/the-newest-nra-poster-child-shaneen.html?showComment=1406452171114#c3914038760408699634

      "" Mike seems satisfied with a month." Plus the loss of her gun rights, of course."

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/07/pa-concealed-carry-permit-holder-faces.html?showComment=1405595346564#c1162242796527436660

      "I do hope she gets out of it somehow, but I'll lament the fact that she's still able to own guns and break laws at will, if that's how it plays out."

      Kurt, that's the last time I'm gonna waste my time proving that you are a fucking inveterate liar.

      Delete
    4. I stand corrected.

      Tell me, though, how was I supposed to have known about those comments? I had never seen that blog post until now (you'll notice that I never commented on it)--I had enough on my plate in July that I didn't spend much, if any, time here. You, for whatever reason, never provided a link to the July post (but you did provide one to the Colion Noir post, which is the thread I searched looking for the comments in question).

      Tell me, Mikeb, do you believe that for a false statement to be a lie, it has to have been intended to deceive? I do, and I can't help but wonder what gives you the impression that I thought I could get away with "lying" about what I thought was a lack of comments on your part expressing opposition to jail time for Ms. Allen, when you could so effortlessly prove that you had indeed made those comments.

      So, if that's "the last time [you're] gonna waste [your] time proving that [I am] a f**king inveterate liar," that accusation is going to go unproven, and indeed bereft of the support of anything approaching compelling evidence, eternally.

      Delete
    5. You just proved that you Did want her to do time, but that you thought that a month was enough.

      That and infamy--the legal designation that results in loss of gun rights, and also problems getting jobs, loss of voting rights etc.

      You can claim that you didn't want her declared infamous, just her gun rights taken, but there is not a method in current law for doing one and not the other.

      Delete
    6. All right, Kurt, take your choice between lying and bumbling thoughtless commenting. It never even occurred to you that there might have been one or two other posts about this story? If you say so, I'll accept that, but it makes you look pretty dumb, am I right? There's a search bar on the front page.

      Delete
    7. Oh, I almost forgot to mention, the very title of the post that you were so focused on should have been a clue. "Colion Noir Gets One right..."

      Delete
    8. All right, Kurt, take your choice between lying and bumbling thoughtless commenting.

      Tell ya' what, Mikeb. I think I'll just reject both the "choices" you've offered me (as if you have the power to offer me choices), and plead not guilty to both those silly charges. How 'ya like them apples?

      I've already established that I wasn't lying, and the fact that I don't find your writing about Ms. Allen sufficiently compelling to be worth searching for strikes me as neither "bumbling," or "thoughtless" (and not "pretty dumb," either).

      As for the title of the Colion Noir piece, I don't see how it would necessarily indicate your libelous attacks on Ms. Allen elsewhere.

      Delete
    9. Kurt, I know you're too insecure and proud to admit anything, but shooting off your mouth without checking first is an embarrassing mistake for a guy like you. And then to claim that my "writing about Ms. Allen [is not] sufficiently compelling to be worth searching," is a slick attempt to blame it on me.

      Delete
    10. I'm not at all embarrassed, but if you feel the need to be embarrassed on my behalf, suit yourself.

      Delete
  2. Don't you think all our whining and crying about her had something to do with the prosecutor changing his mind? This case got publicity- from the gun rights crowd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I don't think the authorities in Atlantic City NJ care very much what's going on in the world of gun-rights blogging. Colion Noir is not an A-list celebrity and his voice does not carry beyond the lunatic fringe that is the gun rights movement.

      Delete
  3. A perfect example of why we should have universal recognition of a weapons license. One issued in any state is good in any state. Just like a drivers license, social security card, credit cards and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once again, Mikeb, your imperviousness to facts and logic is impressive.

    . . . whenever I condemn one of their fellow gun owners for misuse or negligence too quickly, they scream and yell about the need for a lengthy investigation before jumping to conclusions . . .

    We "scream and yell" about your angry demands for an immediate arrest, when there is no need for anyone to be hauled off in handcuffs before more is known about whether or not a crime was committed, and if so who committed it. Ms. Allen and her kids, on the other hand, were already, while we "scream[ed] and yell[ed]," being subjected to the trauma of anticipating what seemed an inevitable, life-ruining incarceration and felony record.

    But, in this case, long before the review by the State Attorny Gereral had been completed . . .

    Um, Mikeb, what "review"? When the outrage started, McClain had already announced his outright rejection of Ms. Allen's request for pre-trial intervention. It was all over except for the trial, where she would certainly have been convicted, because there is no denying that she was carrying the gun (and hollowpoint ammo) illegally. After the verdict, she would inevitably have spent three years in prison, because New Jersey, in its anti-gun wisdom, leaves the judge no discretion with regard to the sentence.

    It was only later, after the outrage expressed by gun rights advocates, that McClain announced that he was considering changing his mind about his earlier decision to not allow pre-trial intervention.

    And sure--contend if you want that the decision to allow PTI after all had nothing to do with the political heat generated by the righteous anger over Ms. Allen's persecution. Anything for a laugh.

    David Codrea has asked Evan Nappen if Ms. Allen's fundamental human right to own and carry a firearm will be restored, and will report any answer. I'll look forward to that, and passing it on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellently stated, Kurt. Congrats to you and others who stirred up interest in the case.

      No, Mike, they weren't reading everything all of us wrote, but as the story spread the outcry grew to a point that it couldn't be ignored--especially after the Rice video tape and the revelation that it was the same prosecutor.

      Delete
    2. Very much appreciated, Anon, although I did very little to spread the word about this case. Evan Nappen and Mikeb's nemesis Colion Noir probably did the most good.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, that's really cute how you support Kurt in his biased analysis. What's most laughable is the suggestion that Colion Noir did the most good. I'd suggest he's an unknown entity outside the lunatic fringe gun-rights movement.

      Kurt says, the Allen family was "being subjected to the trauma of anticipating what SEEMED an inevitable, life-ruining incarceration and felony record."

      and, " the trial, where she WOULD certainly have been convicted."

      AND, " After the verdict, she WOULD inevitably have spent three years in prison."

      That's brilliant, Kurt. At first you were saying those things are inevitable and that her life is ruined, now you change it to would have been. I especially like the "trauma of anticipating."

      Lying lawbreakers who claim ignorance of their wrongdoing after getting caught, ALL have to sweat out the consequences of their actions. That's part of the deal, Kurt, at least if you believe in personal accountability.

      By the way, where was she going? Did that ever come out? At first I thought she was going to Camden to buy drugs, but ss pointed out that she was perhaps on her way to Atlantic City. Was she going for a night of gambling in the casinos? Where were the kids? Did the single mom-of-the-year leave them with the next door neighbor while she was out and about?

      And one further thing, Kurt. Don't you have something to say about the difference in her appearance in the two photos? You've got an answer for everything, your silence on that one is telling. I remember how you didn't like my earlier suggestion that the other pic was photo-shopped. What do you say now?

      Delete
    4. Lying lawbreakers who claim ignorance of their wrongdoing after getting caught . . .

      I suspect that McClain, just like you, could find no evidence that she had lied about anything.

      By the way, where was she going?

      How the hell would I know, and what the hell business is it of mine? Americans have every right to travel from state to state as we please, and without obligation to explain it to anyone. Do you have any evidence that she was on a drug buy (and are there no drugs in Pennsylvania?), or is libel by malicious insinuation the extent of your agenda?

      Where were the kids? Did the single mom-of-the-year leave them with the next door neighbor while she was out and about?

      Again, how would I know, and again, what business is it of mine? Americans also have the right to raise their kids as they see fit, with it becoming other people's business only in the case of abuse or neglect, neither of which have I seen any accusation of (apart from your disgusting allegations here) in this case. If the kids were with a responsible neighbor, or their grandmother, etc., who am I to judge (I would ask who are you to judge, but I know how much you adore that self-granted power)?

      Don't you have something to say about the difference in her appearance in the two photos?

      Now you've really lost me. I see one photo--the one accompanying this post. On the other post, I see only a video. Perhaps my browser settings are interfering somehow with my ability to see this mysterious earlier photo? So the only thing my "silence" should be "telling" you is that I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

      That bafflement also applies, of course, to your suggestion (wherever you made it--perhaps in a few of those same, incredibly elusive "several" comments in which you said Ms. Allen shouldn't do prison time?) that the mystery photo had been photo-shopped.

      That's what I say now. Like it?

      Delete
    5. Oh, and I stand by the position that with McClain having rejected Ms. Allen's request for pre-trial intervention, and with New Jersey's mandatory 3-year sentencing, any reasonable observer would conclude that she was bound for prison for years, and would have a felony conviction on her record for life. How could anyone have anticipated in advance that McClain would change his mind about PTI--which was effectively her only chance to avoid prison time?

      Delete
    6. MikeB: ". I'd suggest he's an unknown entity outside the lunatic fringe gun-rights movement."

      And why can't the "lunatic fringe" do any good in this case? You keep blaming us for affecting national gun policy that 90% of the country wants- surely we could stop a young single mother of two from going to prison.

      Delete
    7. "No evidence that she lied." Of course there was not evidence. Only Ms. Allen knows for sure, the rest of us have to use our best honest judgment, something you're particularly bad at when it makes gun owners look wrong.

      It's the same thing when you so vehemently say you believe her. I think you're lying about that, but proof? Sorry, you're right, I don't have any.

      You gun rights fanatics love to make a big deal about the lack of proof and evidence when by the very nature of the situation, none is possible.

      Delete
    8. "We "scream and yell" about your angry demands for an immediate arrest, when there is no need for anyone to be hauled off in handcuffs before more is known about whether or not a crime was committed, and if so who committed it. "

      That's not entirely true, which will come as no surprise to any regular reader of this blog. I have posted many times of situations in which the guilty person was known as was the fact that a crime had been committed, lamenting about the failure to arrest and charge. I've also posted many similar cases in which the person was arrested immediately, pointing out that they are usually black or brown.

      Delete
    9. You [defenders of liberty] love to make a big deal about the lack of proof and evidence when by the very nature of the situation, none is possible.

      That's one of the (thankfully) very many, (thankfully) vast differences between us, Mikeb. I am quite reluctant to make categorical statements that I cannot back up with evidence, and when I do make a statement I cannot support, I try to stick to my rule of making clear that I'm expressing an opinion, rather than an incontrovertible fact (and yes, I sometimes fall short of that ideal).

      I sure as hell don't call people "liars," simply because I think they don't think what they say they think (yeah, I know--awkward wording, but I kinda like it).

      I have posted many times of situations in which the guilty person was known as was the fact that a crime had been committed, lamenting about the failure to arrest and charge.

      I know you often claim that a crime was committed, and that the guilty person is known, but when I "scream and yell" about your demands for an immediate arrest, it's because I find those claims unconvincing.

      Delete
    10. OK--so now I guess I know what you meant about another photo. As to what's different between that one and this new one--I dunno--darker clothes in this one?

      Very sinister.

      Delete
    11. "OK--so now I guess I know what you meant about another photo."

      Mike said this,

      "Where's the similar outrage over this unbelievable photo (photoshopped?) "

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-newest-nra-poster-child-shaneen.html

      And I commented on this assertion at length, having many times been a victim of mandatory family photos for the holidays and such.

      Delete
    12. I'd suggest he's an unknown entity outside the lunatic fringe gun-rights movement.

      Hmm--interesting. You clearly know about him. I hadn't expected you to admit to fringe lunacy. Good for you, Mikeb--the first step toward dealing with a problem.

      Delete
    13. Furthermore, if it is true that Mr. Noir's piece about the persecution of Ms. Allen has only been seen by gun rights advocates, how does that mean it didn't accomplish anything? Raised awareness equals political pressure. You think there weren't angry calls, emails, and comments left on news outlets' online articles about Ms. Allen?

      McClain changed his mind for some reason. Not a decision undertaken lightly, I'd warrant, as no one likes looking indecisive and incapable of making the right call the first time.

      Delete
    14. "I know you often claim that a crime was committed, and that the guilty person is known, but when I "scream and yell" about your demands for an immediate arrest, it's because I find those claims unconvincing."

      Is that right? Like when a kid is shot while daddy is cleaning his guns at the dining room table? Like when a kid takes daddy's gun to school because daddy left it completely accessible to the kid?

      Many of my posts are like those examples. The crime is clear, the guilty party is clear, yet you defend the pathetic decision of conducting an investigation before determining if a charge should be brought. I even post other stories in which it's done right, but none of that phases you in your blind biased gun-rights fanaticism.

      Delete
    15. Is that right?

      Indeed it is.

      Like when a kid is shot while [the father] is cleaning his guns at the dining room table?

      Cleaning guns at the dining room table is quite legal, and if we were to outlaw clumsiness, carelessness, and egregious judgment, the justice system would be overwhelmed within hours. It's impossible to mandate intelligence, which is why "gun control" advocacy will always be legal.

      Like when a kid takes [the father's] gun to school because [the father] left it completely accessible to the kid?

      So called "safe storage" laws are (fortunately) far from universal in the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if states without them form a majority.

      Delete
    16. Oh, and about this "where were the kids" witch hunt of yours--I never heard what time of day the arrest was (or if I did, it didn't stick)--do we know they weren't in school, while Ms. Allen was on her way to the Atlantic City Historical Museum, or Art Center, or maybe to the library, because she prefers the Atlantic City Library System's science section to the Philly equivalent?

      Hell, for that matter, do we even know that the kids weren't in the car with her?

      Delete
    17. "if we were to outlaw clumsiness, carelessness, and egregious judgment, the justice system would be overwhelmed within hours."

      So, you're response to that is to not outlaw ANY misuse? Wouldn't it be acceptable if we outlawed "clumsiness, carelessness, and egregious judgment" when it results in the injury or death of another?

      Delete
    18. Wouldn't it be acceptable if we outlawed "clumsiness, carelessness, and egregious judgment" when it results in the injury or death of another?

      Nope.

      Delete
    19. I say that makes Kurt a true fanatic and extremist. How about you ss, how about you TS? Can you guys answer this question with one word too?

      Delete
    20. No, I can’t answer it in just one word, it’s more complicated than that. I don’t think people should be faced with criminal punishments unless recklessness is involved- much like how car accidents are treated.

      Delete
    21. TS, isn't violating the 4 rules of gun safety always reckless? Isn't it always negligent? And isn't it necessary to violate one or more of those rules to shoot someone unintentionally?

      Delete
    22. There is a difference between violating a safety rule and recklessly violating a safety rule- like being drunk and pointing your gun at your buddy’s head and pulling the trigger thinking it was unloaded to scare him. That is different than being clumsy. Much like with cars, there are safety rules. Like keep a good distance from the car in front of you, and drive a save speed for the road conditions. Most of the time, an accident can be attributed to breaking one of these rules, but do we treat it with “one strike, you’re out”? No, of course not.

      Delete
    23. When someone is seriously hurt or killed by a gun or a car, do you really think it matters if the doer of the deed was violating a safety rule or recklessly violating it? They should be held accountable in either case. With car accidents I'd say they usually are, but not so with guns, especially if they are white and can somehow avoid the reckless charge. The fact is they're all reckless and they should all pay.

      Delete
  5. "It's kinda funny that after all the whining and crying about unfair treatment by the gun-rights fanatics, including the bizarre exaggeration of Colion Noir, the poor persecuted Shaneen Allen isn't going to be so persecuted after all."

    You bring up some interesting points Mike. What if Ms. Allen hadn't been told about Evan Nappen, and brought to light in the media? I would suggest that the public exposure to her prosecution and the abuse of discretion by McClain that led to this "clarification".
    Lets next look at this comment you made,

    "Another odd note is that whenever I condemn one of their fellow gun owners for misuse or negligence too quickly, they scream and yell about the need for a lengthy investigation before jumping to conclusions."

    Mike, your condemnation quite frequently comes before the accused is even charged, and sometimes before there is even adequate evidence to make an arrest. In fact, you have frequently said that those potentially responsible should be cooling their heels in jail while the police are investigating.
    In Ms. Allen's case, she was arrested last October, and spent over a month in jail BEFORE the public outcry began. Lets compare that to Ray Rice's case. He knocked his then fiancé out in an elevator on the 15th of February. He applied for the pretrial intervention program on May 1st and was officially enrolled in the program on the 20th off the same month.
    Also, keep in mind that this review that was conducted isn't automatic. There were many points of time in this process where if Ms. Allen say had listened to her public defender and taken a plea bargain such as the one offered after her original denial into PTI, she would now be doing serious time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The best part of this whole ordeal is that the courts are forcing the DA to apply PTI to similar cases.

    And if Ms Allen sucessfully completes the program her conviction is vacated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not getting this picture controversy that you speak of, especially in relation to Trayvon Martin. Are you suggesting this picture is real old, and her two kids are now in their 20's so it's misleading to keep referring to her as a "single mother of two"? Or are you saying there are other images of her that are contradictory to this wholesome one? Like pictures of her smoking pot, flashing gang signs, or showing of her gold grill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's puzzling, but Mikeb is a big fan of accusing people of photoshopping. Remember when he claimed that the pic of George Zimmerman that showed that he had sustained a pretty serious beating was "photoshopped"? And then remember that the pic in question turned out to have been one that the prosecution had submitted as evidence, so Mikeb was effectively accusing the prosecution of trying to make Zimmerman look like the victim, rather than the assailant?

      Good times.

      Delete
    2. I have a healthy skepticism of what appears on the internet. Sometimes I'm wrong. Meanwhile you accept anything regardless of how bizarre as long as it supports you're biased pro-gun position.

      Have you told us your "honest" opinion of the two wildly differing images of the mom-of-the-year?

      Delete
    3. Have you told us your "honest" opinion of the two wildly differing images of [Ms. Allen]?

      Actually, I "honestly" (what's with the quotation marks?) don't know what the hell you're talking about. Like I said before, she's wearing a white dress in one pic, and dark clothes in the other. Very sinister.

      Delete
    4. "And then remember that the pic in question turned out to have been one that the prosecution had submitted as evidence, so Mikeb was effectively accusing the prosecution of trying to make Zimmerman look like the victim, rather than the assailant?"

      The one thing that stuck out with me on the Zimmerman photo was that the prosecutor's office had been circulating the grainy black and white image of Zimmerman in May shortly after the shooting he was involved in and didn't release the same photo, but in color until December.

      "O'Mara told Reuters that prosecutors in May had given him a grainy black-and-white photocopy of the image which was taken in the back seat of a Sanford police cruiser. O'Mara said he received the digital image from prosecutors after repeated demands by his office and he posted it Monday on Zimmerman's defense website."

      http://news.msn.com/us/bloody-new-photo-of-trayvon-martins-killer-released-2

      Delete
    5. Yeah--the prosecution in that case liked playing it fast and loose, and the judge let them get away with much of it, and they still couldn't get a conviction.

      Delete
    6. Seriously, Mike, I am just not getting what you mean by “wildly differing” images. One is posed and the other is candid. I am sure there are plenty of each that exist of you.

      Delete
    7. Yes, one appears to be photo-shopped and the other doesn't. Why are you guys so reluctant to admit that?

      Delete
    8. Why are you guys so reluctant to admit that?

      Speaking only for myself, I'm "so reluctant to admit" only to seeing something that I don't see. If either of the photos has been edited, I can't tell. Nor, frankly, can I figure out why it matters.

      Should we form an angry mob over this Shaneen Allen pic, too?

      Delete
    9. Yeah, it’s been photo-shopped to include the “Ammoland” logo.

      But even if your masterful eye has concluded that the professional photographer photo-shopped away some zits (as is quite plausible), what the hell difference does it make? I still have no clue what your point is?

      Why not just explain what you are getting at?

      Delete
    10. TS, you're just pretending to not understand what I'm getting at. You love to make the argument as tedious as possible.

      The first fake photo was produced during the campaign to portray the law-breaker as a poor persecuted single mom of the year. It was as dishonest and misleading as the very young angelic picture of Trayvon Martin that you guys never tired of screaming about.

      Delete
    11. The complaint was that Trayvon was 17, but that picture was when he was 11. Zimmerman did not shoot an 11 year old boy, so that is misleading. Are you saying that Ms. Allen's kids are a lot older than shown? Are they full grown and out of the house, making it wrong to portrait her as a single mother who needs to care for her family? Is that what you are saying?

      Delete
  8. Well, it appears that New Jersey isn't resting on its laurel in regards to applying a dose of common sense in enforcement of its gun laws. I was wondering what Jersey was going to do to shoot itself in the foot next. (pun intended)

    "After Shaneen Allen and Brian Aitken, you’d think that officials in New Jersey would have finally figured out that they need to stop persecuting honest gun owners and instead do their job — targeting hardened criminals.
    Well apparently not, at least not in Cumberland County.
    72-year old retired teacher and military academy graduate Gordon Van Gilder was stopped by a Cumberland County sheriff’s deputy for a minor traffic violation. When he volunteered that he had an antique flintlock pistol with him, he was promptly arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, which carries up to a ten-year prison sentence. Van Gilder’s case is currently stalled while prosecutors claim they are doing “ballistics testing” on the 300-year-old, smooth-bore collectible."

    http://www.ammoland.com/2015/02/new-jersey-arrests-72-year-old-for-antique-flintlock-pistol-possession-video/#axzz3RxV3CBpw


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I object to the Ammoland way of describing events: "you’d think that officials in New Jersey would have finally figured out that they need to stop persecuting honest gun owners and instead do their job — targeting hardened criminals."

      That makes it sound like they've halted all targeting of hardened criminals in order to persecute honest gun owners. Of course that's wrong on two counts, first they are very much targeting criminals and two, the "honest gun owners" they are persecuting are all guilty of something.

      Going back to the first point, let's consider the total number of arrests and prosecutions and divide that number into 3. That should put the situation in some kind of perspective.

      Delete