Honest Gun-Owning Mom Busted In NJ Could Face 3 Years In Prison

[hufnagel]

The best Chief I ever worked for stressed that you treat good citizens like good citizens and crooks like crooks. As long as you didn't violate that core philosophy you would be fine. In this case I guarantee that he would have fired the officer involved. Hope the officer and D/A sleep well and are proud of their work.

I am so glad I am retired.

If you could find ONE cop in the entire state of NJ that applied that philosophy I'd be impressed.
Well ok, I can think of one. He'll never make chief though.

[cclaxton]

But isn't it true that we don't really know how many people were given a warning and sent back to PA?
We only hear about the arrests.
Cody

[David Armstrong]

Does the Criminal Law there not require intent to be proven before she can be convicted?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, in SA our criminal law is based on Roman-Dutch law, so it may differ vastly.

Intent is necessary for some criminal violations, but not all. This is apparently one of the "not all" versions. And while I find the law rather silly I will say that if one is going to own a gun and carry a gun the onus is on the gun owner to know the law. Failing to do so is not a defense, IMO.

[hufnagel]

But isn't it true that we don't really know how many people were given a warning and sent back to PA?
We only hear about the arrests.
Cody

I would be ASTONISHED if any. No seriously, analyze the situation:
Cop stops car. Protocol is to call in the plates immediately, even before the actual stop happens.
Cop lets driver go AFTER being informed of illegal carry (It's NJ... all carry is illegal).
Person let go goes on to commit a crime.
Can you say cop BURIED UNDER THE JAIL for that? The police union would throw him under the bus so fast you'd think Dunkin Donuts was having a special on Boston Crème filled.
Also, most (If not all) departments now have cameras in their cars. Hell you should see the kit in my town's rides; they have so much tech they can't carry people 2-up front anymore!

Honestly I don't think I could get out of that stop even with both PBA cards in hand AND it being the officer who gave them to me!

[cclaxton]

He could have followed her back to the PA line and watched he go into PA....no?
Cody

[hufnagel]

He could have followed her back to the PA line and watched he go into PA....no?
Cody

you never studied...

You don't get a 2nd chance in NJ. Hell you don't even get a 1st chance. Remember... Guns are ILLEGAL in NJ, except under certain narrowly defined exemptions.

[TGS]

He could have followed her back to the PA line and watched he go into PA....no?
Cody

Was that suppose to be a serious comment or a joke?

[Le Français]

Intent is necessary for some criminal violations, but not all. This is apparently one of the "not all" versions.

Why is that? The mens rea ("guilty mind") requirements in criminal laws do not require that the person engaging in the conduct be aware that the conduct is illegal. That is not what intent means in criminal law. Rather, if the law contains an intent requirement, that means that an element of the offense is that the person committing the conduct intended to engage in that conduct. Laws without any mens rea requirement indicate a strict liability crime, which one can commit without even knowing that they were engaging in the prohibited conduct.

For example, in my area operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a strict liability crime. Simply performing the act constitutes a violation of the law, even if the person didn't know that they were engaging in that act.

On the other hand, the crime of murder has been committed if a person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being. That means that they intended to cause the death, or knew they were very likely causing the death. It does not mean that they had to know that what they were doing was illegal and intended to break the law. They may be completely ignorant of the law and still satisfy the intent requirement.

So in this NJ situation, there very well could be an intent requirement in the law that was allegedly broken. For example, if the law stated "A person commits a felony if that person intentionally carries a concealed weapon in the State of XXXX", then all that would mean is that to satisfy the intent element, the person had to intend to carry the concealed weapon in XXXX. Knowledge of the law does not play into it at all.

[cclaxton]

Please donate. I gave $100.
Also spread the link around other gun forums. We should put our money where our words are.

http://gogetfunding.com/project/shan...l-defense-fund

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shane...94457397336649

Cody

[Shellback]

http://gogetfunding.com/project/shan...l-defense-fund

Thanks for posting that!