PJTV on the Brian Aitken Case

Over at PJTV, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds interviews Evan Nappen, the attorney for New Jersey resident Brian Aitken. In August, Aitken began serving a seven year prison sentence firearms possession, even though he had purchased the guns legally, and made a concerted effort to comply with New Jersey law.

Read my column on Aitken's case here.

Comments

[Virginia]

too depressing. 7 years. fucking jersey shithole.

[John]

If Christie pardons this guy, he will become the first politician in my life time I might believe will do the right thing when it counts.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

The question I have is, "What is taking him so long?" He should have pardoned this guy the first he heard of the case. He's been in jail for 4 months now.

[Fist of Etiquette]

He's a dirtbag politician, same as the rest of them. Christie no doubt believes there's more in it for him to not piss off his prosecutors than there is for him to right their wrong.

[Cecil]

As a former prosecutor, Christie is no friend of the Second Amendment.

[Tman]

Christie has said has said that he will make a decision on pardoning Aitken before Christmas.

As others have stated, if he chooses to do the right thing in this case he will continue to build a sizeable amount of respect from independents and pro-2nd amendment groups, which he has not always been kind towards.

[A. Freeman]

The most appropriate sentence is 12 months ACD. But this is the Landfill State and he will serve at least 5 years. Armed violence would have drawn a lighter sentence.

Christie should do the right thing.

[LarryA]

There isn't a "most appropriate sentence." In almost every state transporting a cased, unloaded handgun in your car isn't even remotely illegal.

[Cecil]

Don't count on Christie doing the right thing. He ran for Governor stating he believed all of New Jersey's current gun laws should be vigorously enforced.

[FTFY]

...made a concerted effort to apply comply with New Jersey law.

[Jay]

Glenn Reynolds - he's the guy who wanted to throw atomic bombs at North Korea, right?
What a class act...

/Jay

[Zeebs]

Still trying to figure out why he is absolutely revered by various Reason staff and editors.

[YoureslippingJay]

You mean, like if North Korea invaded South Korea, Jay? What would you do?

[Les]

There are a lot of sane responses to that scenario. Some of those sane responses are very immediate and violent, while being decent at the same time. Heavily nuking N. Korea (and Reynolds was very clear that many nukes should be dropped) is neither sane nor decent.

[R C Dean]

Almost 90 minutes until the next Reynolds slam.

Now, I thought his "nuke the Norks" post was out of bounds, but you would probably be hard-pressed to find very many people with a bigger web profile who consistently push a small-government line.

I know lots of people hate his guts because of his views on the WOT and whatnot, but aside from that, he's a pretty consistent moderate/incremental libertarian.

But, of course, for true believers, politics is about purifying and excluding, so don't let me interrupt.

[Les]

I don't hate his guts. I don't know him. I only know that it is downright demented to think that Israel ought to bomb Iran in "in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible." It's the worst kind of war-mongering, and it's an example of why he doesn't consistently push a small-government line. He has a leftist's faith in government when it comes to national security.

[Juice]

Pro-war-on-terror and anti-big-government just don't mix.

And how can you develop, build, and maintain nuclear weapons as well as their delivery systems with a small government?

[John Thacker]

And how can you develop, build, and maintain nuclear weapons as well as their delivery systems with a small government?

Thus bringing back up the "Goldwater can't possibly be anti-big-government" argument.

[LarryA]

And how can you develop, build, and maintain nuclear weapons as well as their delivery systems with a small government?

All three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad were firmly in place by 1965. We could cut the layers of government we've added since then.

[R C Dean]

Pro-war-on-terror and anti-big-government just don't mix.

I disagree. If you were to completely eliminate the war on terror, we should still have a huge and bloated government.

Conversely, if our government was shrunk down to only the enumerated powers, you could still have a war on terror. That war would lack the security theater that we all know and loathe (and Reynolds is scathing in his contempt for security theater). But the overseas portion of it might not look much different.

When it comes to our emerging Total State, the war on terror is neither necessary, nor sufficient, nor even significant, in the scheme of things.

[????? ??????]

Thanks