Ammoland
As we mentioned when the story broke, it is absolutely unbelievable that she didn't know about the difference between NJ laws and PA laws. She lied about that. At the very least she's another scofflaw gun owner who lives by the adage "bad laws be damned." And when caught, there's no admission of having made a mistake or having done wrong, only blame and finger-pointing at the overly severe laws in NJ which "make criminals" out of poor persecuted gun owners.
The best part of this whole charade is the gun-rights attempt to paint her as not only an innocent, but as some kind of paragon of motherly virtue. Dozens of articles have described her as a "mom," as one who works two jobs, in other words, as a saintly martyr.
These are the same folks who went berserk about the supposedly misleading photos of Trayvon Martin. The gun-rights fanatics wrote hundreds of blog posts and thousands of comments about how the left was purposely misrepresenting the appearance of Trayvon.
Where's the similar outrage over this unbelievable photo (photoshopped?) that Ammoland published? Where's the similar outrage over the barrage of pro-gun articles proclaiming her lofty and innocent status. I don't hear anyone on the gun-control side screaming about it. So, let me be the first.
Like many things, packaging is a big factor in the outcome, even in criminal justice. I really cant fault the release of the original photo of Martin. It likely came from his parents and all parents want to portray their child in the best light after such a loss.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the story wore on, some smart journalist should have noticed that the photo given looks like a middle school kid, not someone close to legal adulthood. Unfortunately, many of the more recent photos seem to be of Martin seemingly embracing the thug type image.
Yes, the photo of Allen looks posed, a lot like the annual family photo that both you and I have had to endure, many shots in various poses, trying to find just the right look, and for me at least, seeming to go on forever. Photoshopped? Beats me. One way to decide would be to find other photos out in internet land.
http://www.hiphopstan.com/mom-busted-nj-face-3-years-prison/
As I said earlier, I find it hard to believe that a permit holder in PA, especially from Philly, wouldn't know that Jersey is a gun no-man's land. The question then becomes, should messing up like she did result in a felony conviction and three years in prison?
Apparently, she has already spent a month in jail awaiting trial. She also seems to have ended up with a prosecutor who wants to be known as a tough on crime guy and has denied a request for pre-trial intervention, which Allen seems to be well qualified to get.
It also appears she shouldn't be getting charged at all,
"Nappen immediately filed an appeal of the prosecutor’s denial of PTI, and also filed a motion for dismissal based on a “firearms amnesty” that was in effect when Shaneen was arrested. The state legislature had declared a 90-day amnesty window during which unlawful possession of a firearm was not unlawful.
Somehow the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and the public defender were all unaware of this amnesty period.
As of this writing, Shaneen Allen is out on bail, and the judge has ordered a delay while he reviews Nappen’s motions, but Allen’s future, and the futures of her two young sons, is still very much in question."
This actually sounds pretty strange that the Jersey legislature would pass such an amnesty. I also wonder why they did it. But if true, it sounds like there's a fair chance charges will be dismissed. Then the question is will they find alternate charges. In this case, I'm thinking that a month in jail should result in no further action.
Is that your stance on all who break the law? They should not even be charged. Just as you ignore laws that you disagree with.
DeleteI agree a month in jail is more than enough for what she did. But I still wonder what she was doing there. Who was taking care of the kids while mother-of-the-year was driving in Jersey. For all we know she was on her way to cop crack in Camden. To me that's more likely than the false image that photo seems to be implying.
Delete"They should not even be charged."
DeleteIf the article is accurate and there was some sort of amnesty in force when she was arrested, and her case falls within its guidelines, then yes. Though in this case, the charges would be dismissed.
If the prosecutor had accepted the original request for the PTI, then we likely would never had heard about the amnesty. She has already spent a month in jail. I suppose it depends on what you consider a fair penalty to be for first offence of unlawful possession. I think the term that applies here would be "time served"
"For all we know she was on her way to cop crack in Camden. To me that's more likely than the false image that photo seems to be implying."
DeleteHow do you arrive at that conclusion Mike? What we know is that she works in the medical field. No criminal record. And went to the effort to get a carry permit.
I haven't seen anything about where in Jersey she was arrested. The only mention I've seen was the comment "across the river".
"Time served" is your law, not the law. If you think the law is wrong you have a right to seek to change it. You do not have the right to ignore it. Something you have started you would do in many cases.
Delete"Something you have started you would do in many cases."
DeleteWhich law have I said I would ignore Anon? In this case the judge will make the decision on whether to dismiss the charges. Then the prosecutor can I imagine have another go at her. I hope not, but he might.
How much longer do you think she should go to jail for? Mike seems satisfied with a month.
So? We also disagree on how long a jail term a parent should get when they "accidentally" kill their child.
DeleteI'm not willing to accept YOUR law, but gun loons love to claim what they believe should be law and reject anything else.
" Mike seems satisfied with a month." Plus the loss of her gun rights, of course.
Delete"We also disagree on how long a jail term a parent should get when they "accidentally" kill their child."
DeleteAnon, if you aren't comfortable answering my original question, just say so. Bringing up off topic assertions don't contribute much to this topic.
I don't think I've been wishy washy in my belief that the great majority of "accidents" and actually negligence. Most states have something called negligent homicide that cover that pretty well.
"Plus the loss of her gun rights, of course."
DeleteIf the charges are indeed dismissed, and she isn't charged with another felony, that wont be the case. She might have pled guilty to the felony gun charge if she had been offered the PTI. Then she would have lost her gun rights.
She likely went to the second attorney who seems to be more knowledgeable of Jersey gun law because the prosecutor wanted to play hardball.
You never answer questions SS and ALWAYS change the subject.
DeleteYOU brought it up which makes it relevant. More of your lies to try and twist the truth? Typical of you.
DeleteAnon, I never brought up penalties for accidental shootings in this thread. You introduced it. How about we address that issue on a more germane post. Or maybe Mike would let you submit something, though you might have to become unanonymous. Though that would be Mike's call.
DeleteWhen you decide to get serious and not just lie about my positions and refuse to answer questions I'll consider it, but the way you are now, it would be a waste of time.
Delete"For all we know she was on her way to cop crack in Camden."
DeleteApparently she was a ways from Camden Mike.
"He says Allen, a 27-year-old phlebotomist, didn't know it was illegal to have her .380 Bersa Thunder handgun with her at the time she was pulled over in Atlantic County in October."
http://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2014/08/02/new-jerseys-tight-gun-laws-ensnare-staters/13505625/
Ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape prosecution.
Delete"poor persecuted gun owners"
ReplyDeleteYou mean law breakers.
What evidence do you have that is a fake picture of Mrs. Allen? That was in fact a fake picture of Martin. It was a photo of a 12 year old, not the Trayvon that even the family lawyers admit and accept the eye witness and physical evidence that it was Trayvon that attacked Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteThe famous angelic Trayvon Martin picture was not fake, it was just a few years old. The above pic of the happy Shaneen family looks fake. Look at the three smiles, do they look real to you? How about the outline and background behind the heads of the kids? Look real to you?
DeleteThe real problem I have with the poor persecuted gun owner, and newest poster child of the gun rights movement, is that she lied to the cops. It is wholly unbelievable that a person from Philly who owns a gun and goes through the necessary challenges of getting a carry permit could NOT KNOW that Jersey is a different animal when it comes to gun rights. It's not believable.
That means she went there knowing full will that if she were stopped it could be a big problem and when she was stopped she thought she could be slick and admit she was carrying and pretend to not know that it was illegal as a way of getting off. She was wrong.
The Trayvon Martin photo was taken when he was 11 or 12 and was altered to make him look lighter. I sat through the whole trial first hand. The above picture is probably a family photo.
DeleteIf that is your real problem, they you should have no problem. What did she lie to the cops about? She was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. She handed the cop her permit and told the cop exactly where the gun is. That is evidence that she reasonably thought otherwise. Had she not mentioned it to the cop, the cop would not know. If she wouldn't have told the cop, she wouldn't be in any trouble at all. Also, she was educated on PA law, not NJ law. What you think is "believable" or not is not based any facts or evidence. But then, facts, evidence, and reason isn't your (or any other gun control fan's) strong suit is it?
"Also, she was educated on PA law, not NJ law. What you think is "believable" or not is not based any facts or evidence."
DeleteGEJ, I'm also suffering from the same lack of belief that Mike is on this issue. I live in the middle of the country and I know, though Mike has argued the point at length here, that New Jersey is the US equivalent of Mordor when it comes to gun rights in general and rights to carry in public in particular. New Jersey is a de facto no carry state.
That being said, I also recognize that I'm not an average person in regards to firearms issues. I'm fairly active politically in my home state, and I'm a news junkie when it comes to gun issues.
I know through my training for a permit that different states have different laws and that some don't recognize my permit, and that its my responsibility to know the carry laws of the state I'm traveling in and if my permit is valid there, I need to obey local law.
For example, in Minnesota, you are required to present your permit to a police officer if he asks for it. Other states require a permit holder to present it to him up front without him asking.
I imagine part of this case will cover what was covered in Allen's training for her PA permit. Is permit reciprocity required to be taught and if so the instructor might have to testify as to whether he actually covered it.
So is it possible that she didn't know? Possible, though her burden to prove it to me would be up there with the burden my son would have if I find a porn site in his browsing history.
A court of law however is an entirely different animal. And of course, given the mandatory sentence for her charges, the possibility of jury nullification has been brought up in some of the stuff I've read.
"According to Nappen, potential jurors could invoke jury nullification, a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but don't deserve to be punished. It can apply in all states, but attorneys are generally not permitted to introduce the concept to jurors."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-case-against-philly-mom-arrested-for-legal-gun/
GEJ: " What did she lie to the cops about?"
DeleteIs that a serious question?
Just when I thought things couldn't get any weirder in the land of government workers in New Jersey, I caught this video from one of Mike's favorite people, Colion Noir.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmrWmYLko4
I of course had to look elsewhere to confirm this story. And sure enough, it seems to be true.
"The same prosecutor who let professional football star Ray Rice avoid a trial after beating his wife unconscious are pushing forward with the prosecution of Shaneen Allen, a single mother who carried a gun into New Jersey without realizing her Pennsylvania permit didn't apply there."
"Allen tried to avoid a trial and jail time by applying to a pre-trial intervention program in New Jersey for first-time offenders. Ray Rice, the Baltimore Ravens running back who knocked his then-fiancee unconscious during an altercation in Atlantic City in February, was accepted into the program in May.
But Atlantic County prosecutor Jim McClain, the same prosecutor who allowed Rice to avoid prosecution, denied Allen's application to the program on Wednesday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/shaneen-allen_n_5659383.html
I'm wondering what else they'll try to do to make themselves look worse, if that is even possible. Maybe this is all planned to make the Governor look good, though that would presuppose some political savvy, something I'm skeptical of.
Naturally Colion takes it too far in his generalizations about the so-called anti-gun people, and I strongly doubt if Shaneen's was an honest mistake, but I pretty much agree with what he has to say in this video about the McClain disparity in treating the two cases.
DeleteHowever, the last word is McClain's reviewing the decision. Maybe he'll make it right, which for me would be a slap on the wrist and no time in jail.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/crime/courts/prosecutor-seeks-time-to-rethink-position-on-shaneen-allen-gun/article_66d1ba80-3d0a-11e4-b97c-2732096e7117.html
Well, here's an interesting development. Unfortunately, I personally think his timing sucked in that what could have earned him some points for doing the right thing, it now looks like just more pandering to potential voters. On the plus side though, Ms. Allen is no longer a prohibited person.
ReplyDelete"Gov. Chris Christie has granted a pardon to Shaneen Allen, the Pennsylvania mother and gun owner who was arrested in October 2013 for carrying a concealed weapon into New Jersey."
"Her attorney, Evan Knappen, of Eatontown, said the Allen case lead to the Office of the Attorney General issuing new guidelines that allow people who are legally entitled to carry firearms in their home states to enter diversionary programs instead of heading directly to a Garden State prison if charged with violating state law.
"It was quite a fight for her down there in Atlantic County, and it led to significant changes," Knappen said. "Hundreds of folks were helped by her case...It's a little absurd to take someone who's a law abiding citizen in their home state but then put them into a New Jersey state prison for a mandatory 3 to 5 year sentence and make them a felon."
Christie, in signing the pardon, cleared Allen on the gun possession charge as well as a related ammunition charge."
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/gov_christie_grants_pardon_to_pistol-packing_pa_mo.html
Which law? The Constitution or the NJ law? Pick one.
ReplyDeleteHow come NJ gets to break the law?
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck are you talking about, Kyle? If you want to participate in the discussions around here, why don't you look at some of the more recent posts. I'm sure there's plenty for you to disagree with there.
DeleteUnless you just wanted to leave some drive by bullshit.