Is this the perfect gun case defendant?

[wally]

Felons & convicts don't vote

Not if the Democrats get their way!

11. Dependency on welfare and food stamps and other Government Programs.

The real anti-freedom agenda!

 

[MICHAEL T]

Where's Holder at? I mean he let Blk Panthers walk .Surely he could get her freedom . Just a phone call to gov .I mean Christy is a pal of Obama .

 

[LubeckTech]

Where is Chris Christy in all of this?

We all know he is a perfect example of a RINO and NO friend to gun owners but he wants us to think he is our friend because he wants to be president.
I have a question for him.
From a purely economic stand point.
Why would I even remotely consider voting for a presidential candidate who as govenor would permit his state to spend at least $150,000 PLUS the costs of trial and costs to put her children in foster care?? If convicted this would cost the state of NJ abear minimum of $200,000 for NO GOOD REASON. Nothing would be served, the people would be no safer but they would be poorer in more ways than one. I know he can't dismiss the charges himself but there is no doubt in my mind he could persuade the local prosecutor. to drop them with a phone call. He could commute her sentence once conviceted but I think he could make more "political hay" getting involved before to goes to trial.

 

[twofifty]

Let's not leave out the higher future costs to society and to the state for dealing with the kids/teens once they start acting out on the anger triggered by their mother being taken from them.

That would be 3 lives wasted, all for some stupid paper crime that isn't a crime right next door.

 

[LubeckTech]

She WILL end up in a welfare program and that is an another ton of money altogether.
Prosecuting this lady goes WAY beyond stupid and I would certainly think a man in a position of power wanting to be president would be cashing in so to speak on this but that just goes to prove what an idiot he is.

 

[SleazyRider]

Hold on a second!

Are you suggesting that justice for me---a male, unemployed, white carpenter who has no dependents---should be different? Has justice been reduced to a matter of economics?

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Hold on a second!

Are you suggesting that justice for me---a male, unemployed, white carpenter who has no dependents---should be different? Has justice been reduced to a matter of economics?

+1

In our fervor to condemn a bad law and point out the unintended consequences, we cannot forget we live under the rule of law and for our society to work, all laws need to be applied to all people. She broke the law and must pay the consequences. It is a shame that the punishment does not fit the crime and even more so because her actions shouldn't amount to a crime in the first place, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. The proper action by the governor and/or local representation in NJ would be to remove the law, or at the very least, amend it so that what happened in this circumstance is not a felony; this way, it can be applied fairly to everyone. Sadly, she may get the short end of the stick, but for the rest of us, maybe this will be the catalyst for some good change.

 

[LubeckTech]

The problem is that bankrupting the state for no good purpose is not justice. The lady DID break the law and as a concealed carry premit holder it was certainly her responsibility to know this so there should be a conquence. Three years in prison for her or anyone under these circumstances is not reasonable. If the circumstances were different it could be reasonable. For instance were a crime, assault or threat of voilence in play in this instance then by all means 3 years is appropriate. In this instance an appropriate concequence would be to confenscate her gun and ammo and issue a traffic citation. In most juristictions the prosecuting attorney decides which cases to persue and considering the severity or lack there of in this situation the prosecutor should have exercised discretion.

 

[BSA1]

SleazyRider & NoVA Shooter,

Crime and punishment in America is very big business. It creates jobs and revenue for thousands of Federal, State and Local Governments, thousands of private businesses and millions of their employees.

The reality is you will be treated differently which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

In this instance an appropriate concequence would be to confenscate her gun and ammo and issue a traffic citation. In most juristictions the prosecuting attorney decides which cases to persue and considering the severity or lack there of in this situation the prosecutor should have exercised discretion.

Agreed, if the law allows for that type discretion. If not, this case should bring to light the need for a change. If I were ever in a circumstance where legal action was being taken against me, I wouldn't want the application of the law to be based off of my social/economic status in society. I don't think I'd make a very sympathetic 'criminal'.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

SleazyRider & NoVA Shooter,

Crime and punishment in America is very big business. It creates jobs and revenue for thousands of Federal, State and Local Governments, thousands of private businesses and millions of their employees.

True, but that doesn't mean justice can't still be impartial.

The reality is you will be treated differently which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sure, it may be a good thing if you're a sympathetic offender. But if we simply apply the law differently to some under certain conditions, the the law never changes and one day, someone who is just as deserving of leniency gets the book thrown at them simply because they aren't employed, <insert gender>, <insert race>, with dependents.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Double standards.....

What irks me in the modern era(driven mainly by 24/07 news cycles & the internet) is how some armed citizens or license holders get no charges or civil actions but others with different ages/races/genders/$ status/etc who do the same thing do get charged or convicted.
The US criminal justice system is not fair. It's designed to churn defendants(citizens) thru as quickly as possible. Those with the $$$ or resources can get reduced sentences or fines. Poorer citizens or those less educated are thrown into the vat & must fend for themselves.
I had a legal issue in 2012. It was resolved & I was cleared but my personal relationship with the local state atty(an elected official) helped greatly.
Not every citizen gets those types of breaks.
The PA woman made mistakes but she's not a bad person. There are far worse offenders/fugitives the LE and/or prosecutors can go after than her.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Looks like she rejected a plea deal. I wish this lady the best.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140806_Philly_mom_will_stand_trial_for_bringing_gun_to_N_J_.html

 

[LubeckTech]

Is there anyway to find out what the deal was which she declined?

This case is not about justice but about harassment pure and simple.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

According to that PI article, the plea deal was for 3 1/2 years.

MAYS LANDING, N.J. - The words common sense were mentioned quite a bit during Shaneen Allen's hearing yesterday in Atlantic County Superior Court.

Allen, 27, cried for a moment in the hallway with her son Naiare and his father after a judge denied her motion to dismiss weapons charges filed against her in October and refused to overturn a prosecutor's decision to deny her entry into a first-time-offender diversion program.

So Allen walked back into court, turned down a plea deal that would have given her a 3 1/2-year sentence and decided to go to trial in October, hoping a jury would use some common sense and not send a working mother of two to prison for not knowing New Jersey's gun laws.

 

[Tom488]

The "plea deal" was no deal.... it was, "plead guilty to the second-degree offense of unlawful possession of a handgun, and we'll dismiss the 4th degree charge of unlawful possession of hollow-nose bullets. You'll receive a 7 year sentence on the handgun possession, of which the Graves Act requires a minimum 50% term served before parole. You'll then be eligible for parole in 3.5 years".

The only way she could do worse at trial, is if she is convicted on both counts (and, aside from jury nullification, she will be - she's clearly guilty of the charges), and issued consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. Or, if she is sentenced to the maximum amount of time on the 2nd degree charge - 10 years. Both scenarios are HIGHLY unlikely.

So she really turned down nothing. The big loss in her most recent hearing was again failing to convince "the machine" to allow her into the PTI program - which is exactly what SHOULD have been done in this case.

 

[Willie Sutton]

PTI has *often* been offered to others in NJ who have faced the same charges.

To not do so in this case is a missuse of discretion. She's a poster child for someone who should be entered into this program.


Willie

.

 

[HankR]

The US criminal justice system is not fair.

Rusty, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, as noted above and this lady is feeling the brunt of it. I agree with Tom that, barring nullification, she will be found guilty. I further agree with the topic of this thread, that she would probably be a good case to appeal in an attempt to overturn some of Jersey's more ridiculous laws. I wish her luck, and will contribute if SAF takes up the cause, but I'm glad I won't be the one in jail awaiting the appeals process if it comes to that.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Rusty, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, as noted above and this lady is feeling the brunt of it.

Yep, there are consequences for our actions. Just because the legal system can cut somebody a break does not mean that it will or should cut somebody a break. That isn't unfair or unjust. It may suck, but it isn't outside of the law.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Where is Chris Christy in all of this?

Exactly where he belongs, which is "not involved". Remeber the branches of Government part of your civics classes? (probably not). Here's a reminder: The executive branch of government (both state and federal) does not intervene with the running of the judiciary branch. Post conviction the Governer can sign pardons, but pre-conviction? He has no power to do a thing. When the Legislative Branch brings forth a bill regarding this, and the Executive Branch signs it into law, the Judiciary Branch will change what it does. Where in this triad do you think Christie sits? Hint: Not as the King of a Realm...


No, you can blame the NJ State Legislature (past and present) for this one.



Willie

.

 

[HankR]

Exactly where he belongs, which is "not involved".

As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter. Even to the point of asking him if he would pardon the lady if she were to be convicted. Inquiring minds want to know. Although we know that Christy is soft on this issue, he doesn't know that we know that. I think he should be asked his opinion, both by the press and by us via a flood of letters, of laws that can put somebody in jail for 10 years for something that is probably rattling around under the seat of my truck right now.

No, you can blame the NJ State Legislature (past and present) for this one.

Not sure how it works in Jersey, but in my state the governor has to sign these laws into being. Questions to include above include whether or not Christy would sign such a law today, whether he would support repeal of such laws, and whether he would support/lobby for/sign such ridiculous laws at the national level he were elected to the presidency.

 

[Midwest]

As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter. Even to the point of asking him if he would pardon the lady if she were to be convicted. Inquiring minds want to know. Although we know that Christy is soft on this issue, he doesn't know that we know that. I think he should be asked his opinion, both by the press and by us via a flood of letters, of laws that can put somebody in jail for 10 years for something that is probably rattling around under the seat of my truck right now.



Not sure how it works in Jersey, but in my state the governor has to sign these laws into being. Questions to include above include whether or not Christy would sign such a law today, whether he would support repeal of such laws, and whether he would support/lobby for/sign such ridiculous laws at the national level he were elected to the presidency.

I believe this story will put the spotlight on Gov. Christie at some point if it hasn't already. Some reporter will eventually ask him about this case and ask about his real views on gun control to the rest of the country.

Eventually Christie will have to answer. He just can't 'sit on the fence' or blow it off by saying "New Jersey is Special" or that this is a special case. That won't play to the rest of the country especially if he wants to make a bid for President or be considered for an important cabinet post in an possible Republican administration in the future.

The lady's attorney, Evan Nappen (famous Pro-gun lawyer in NJ) could make quite a few media appearances over this case and put a huge spotlight on New Jersey's ugly, draconian, arcane and backward gun laws even further. Maybe then maybe the NRA, GOA and other organizations will finally start paying attention to NJ.

I'd like to believe that something good will come out this case. Yes I would have hoped that the lady would have received PTI and that she would not be facing 3+ years in the slammer. Yet if she did get PTI and the case was 'settled' . Unfortunately we still would be having this same conversation again a few months down the road in yet another case.

I am hopeful that maybe something good could come out of this in some way. The national spotlight is on Christie, the national spotlight is on NJ politics, the national spotlight is on NJ's draconian gun laws and maybe that could help spark change with this case. And Lord knows, NJ gun owners need all the help they can get!
.

 

[BSA1]

For the members of THR that believe the law should or need to be applied equally to all persons this is a textbook case (Post 82). This is a perfect case of mandatory sentencing being applied regardless of the long term cost of destroying this woman's future, her family and the burden it is going to place on society for the rest of her life and maybe even her chdren as they grow up on welfare.

But for all of THR members that have already convicted her, hold that not knowing the law in a State she doesn't live in as a lack of responsibility and believe she should be punished consider this. This law is not applied equally to all accused. N.J. Has a diversion program with a citizen with no criminal history is not eligible for.

SleazyRider in Post 82 asks if it is a "matter of economics." My response is why not? What did her alledged crimes cost society? The traffic violation did not appear to place anyone in danger, harm anyone or cause any property damage. Her alleged gun violation certainly did not create any danger, harm or property damage.

She is being tried for mere possession of a item that Government does not approve of. Nothing more, nothing less. For the Liberal Agenda to succeed folks like her have to have their lives destroyed and they must be forced to become on the Government for their needs.

Remember it is very possible that these same laws can (and probably will) someday be used against you.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This is a perfect case of mandatory sentencing being applied regardless of the long term cost of destroying this woman's future, her family and the burden it is going to place on society for the rest of her life and maybe even her chdren as they grow up on welfare.

Yes, those are some of the negative consequences of being convicted of breaking such laws.

She is being tried for mere possession of a item that Government does not approve of. Nothing more, nothing less.

To which she admitted to possessing and for which there are certain penalties in place and have been for many years. Where has the fight been to change these laws for all of these years???

However, if you are so concerned, don't waste your time on the individual cases, you need to fight the law itself. If you spend all your resources fighting individual cases to help these people whose lives are going to be ruined, then people's lives will continue to be ruined until the law is changed.

I understand that you are personally worried about Shaneen Allen, but why not about Jose Caban Jr., Quadere Austin, Keeayre R. Griffin, Shane P. Scott, Mike Goodson, Charles Fults, Dustin Reininger, Daquan Rodriguez, David Talmadge, Raheem Jacobs, Kareem Carter, Angel Deleon, etc. etc. etc. etc. Are we fighting for each one of these unjustly accused (and some convicted) victims of these stupid laws? The laws are obviously wrong no matter what else might have been going on at the time (and for some, it was also simple traffic violations or unrelated questioning).

Remember it is very possible that these same laws can (and probably will) someday be used against you.

Scare tactics work better when you can show relevance. You failed to show relevance.

 

[Willie Sutton]

As someone who is rumored to be considering a run for the presidency, Christy could be asked his opinion on this matter.


And it would be unethical interferance with the judiciary branch for him to do so.

Look at it this way, would you like Obama to be able to interfere openly and publically and to comment on cases not yet brought to trial at the federal level stating that he would pardon the person after conviction in advance of a conviction? You would HOWL with outrage.

Yet you expect the exact same thing from Christie when the case is one that *you* think is deserving of special treatment?

I don't think that's going to happen ....



Willie

.