Gun Control

Can a Gun Owner Get Justice in New Jersey?

Prosecutors try to send a peaceful Pennsylvanian to prison for crossing the Delaware River with a pistol in her purse.


Shaneen Allen faces three and a half years in prison because she made an honest mistake, followed by a mistake of honesty. Allen, a 27-year-old phlebotomist who lives in Philadelphia, drove to Atlantic City with a gun in her purse, erroneously thinking her Pennsylvania carry permit would be respected in New Jersey. Then she told a state trooper about the gun when he pulled her over for a traffic violation.

Last week a state judge refused to dismiss the resulting charges against Allen, a single mother of two with no criminal record, or to order that prosecutors approve her participation in a pretrial diversion program. Her trial, scheduled for October 6, will pit New Jersey's draconian gun laws against compassion and common sense.

Last year Allen, after being robbed twice, legally bought a .380-caliber Bersa Thunder pistol for personal protection. She had owned it just a week when she was pulled over for an unsafe lane change on the Atlantic City Expressway around 1 a.m. on October 1.

Allen, who was on her way to an Atlantic City hotel to prepare for her son's birthday party a few days later, followed the standard advice for people with carry permits who are stopped by police. She volunteered that she had a gun in the car and showed the state trooper her permit as well as her driver's license.

Allen did not realize that her carry permit, unlike her driver's license, was no good in New Jersey. Although Pennsylvania's carry permits are recognized by 29 other states, New Jersey is not one of them.

New Jersey not only does not recognize other states' carry permits; it is stingy with its own. They are reserved for people who can demonstrate what police officials consider a "justifiable need." Under a policy that has been upheld by state courts, that means "persons specifically employed in security work" or "others who can establish an urgent necessity."

You may wonder how that policy, which gives the government nearly unfettered discretion to decide who may exercise the constitutional right to bear arms, comports with the Second Amendment. It doesn't, although last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit somehow managed to conclude that it does.

In any case, Shaneen Allen was not trying to test New Jersey's laws when she crossed the border with a handgun in her purse. It is plain from the way she got caught that she did not realize she was breaking the law.

But as Nicola Bocour of Ceasefire NJ told the Associated Press, "ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law." Probably she meant that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. You get the idea.   

Another gun control activist, Bryan Miller of the Philadelphia-based group Heeding God's Call, argues in a recent op-ed piece published by the Cherry Hill Courier-Post that Allen's prosecution will improve public safety by discouraging Pennsylvania permit holders from carrying their guns over the Delaware River—as if New Jersey has seen a wave of violent crimes committed by law-abiding gun owners like Allen. Atlantic County Assistant Prosecutor Deborah Hay likewise cites "deterrence" as a reason to pursue the case.

What about justice? If convicted Allen faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years. The maximum, taking into account an additional charge for possessing hollow-point ammunition, is more than 11 years.

"Mistakes happen," Allen told Fox News. "I just hope that everything turns out OK for me and my kids, because I'm all they have."

As Allen's attorney, Evan Nappen, explained after last week's hearing, "she really has nothing to lose by going to trial at this point," since the only plea bargain offered by prosecutors would require Allen to serve three and half years (i.e., the mandatory minimum). It looks like her fate will be determined by a jury's willingness to do the right thing, which in this case means ignoring an unjust law.

NEXT: Brickbat: Bad Assignment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So mens rea was once a thing, right?

    1. Yeah, but it was like a hundred years ago and hard to understand.

    2. Safer cities, guns bad, hard line stance, something else.

    3. The mens rea requirement is fulfilled by her knowing she had the gun when she went into NJ. Not that it makes the law any less stupid.

      1. If she had criminal intent, would she have alerted the officer at the traffic stop?

        1. Judge: “Since she knew that she had the gun and since ignorance of the law is no excuse she did have criminal intent.”

          While some miracle of justice could happen here, I don’t see this ending well for her.

          1. You can make that argument, but it doesn’t hold water. Mens rea is no longer even an afterthought in the criminal justice system.

            1. You can make that argument

              Actually, do to it’s basic evil, I can’t. I am just assuming that a judge would.

              1. do due…doo doo

            2. Mens rea would only apply if she didn’t know she was carrying the firearm (e.g. someone else placed it in her possession without her knowledge).

              Since she admitted to having it, she can’t possibly claim she didn’t know she had it.

              Yet another reason to exercise your right to remain silent.

              1. Can’t she just count on prosecutorial descretion? Isn’t every prosecutor a reasonable, just, and kind person who believes sincerely in individual rights?

              2. Mens rea applies because she didn’t know she was breaking the law.

                “As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault.”

          2. Remarkable ignorance of the law by this so-called judge. He clearly has no clue what mens rea means.

          3. I disagree. Mens rea requires conscious wrong doing, and she obviously did not. The fact that she acted according to concealed carry requirements of most states by telling the officer she had a firearm and a concealed carry permit is proof of that. Had she not informed the officer of that, she probably would have been given a ticket and just gone on her way without being searched. It is time for a grass roots campaign in New Jersey and the obviously anti 2d amendment prosecutor should have his political career come to a screaming halt. VIVA LA REVOLUCION

    4. It may still be. I wish these stories would link to the actual provisions so that the average punter can read the bloody laws for themselves. That’s assuming the state government bothers to make its laws easily accessible to the people. I’ve tried on the NJ Legislature website and it’s so painful it makes me want to self-harm. Or self-medicate.

      1. I found the NY State code posted online by someone other than the state. They do their best to make it navigable, but it is the effluent of the NYS Legislature.

        1. *I have not managed to find NJ Law.


            Sorry for the long link. This is NJ criminal code.

      2. But we also have asset forfeiture cases like United States vs. Seventy Thousand Dollars in Cash

        1. I’m waiting for the case of “United States vs one slightly melted and half-eaten Mars Bar”

          1. City of Philadelphia v One Box of Tasty, Tasty Donuts that Look Like a Dirty Whore and Just Want to be Eaten all Up, Yeah, That’s Right, Don’t You?

      3. Try the law library at your local courthouse, or go online searching for New Jersey Code annotated or something similar like laws of New Jersey.

    5. What does her period have to do with anything??

  2. Someone posted on another thread a link to the Shaneen Allen Legal Defense Fund. I’ll repost it here. Thanks to whoever originally posted it.

    If you’re concerned about whether or not it is legitimate, a National Review article on Shaneen Allen includes a link to the fundraiser.

    1. also mentions the legal defense fund in this article.

      1. Based on that article, she did everything right, and gets shat upon by an insane, ignorant state; essentially being made into a criminal for not being a criminal. As a PA resident, and a holder of licenses to both carry a firearm and practice law in ye olde commonwealth it is my professional and personal opinion (based upon what I know) that this is a politically motivated, bullshit prosecution, and that both the prosecutor and judge are disgraces to the bar for going after exactly whom they should not. “Miscarriage of justice” springs to mind.

        Very truly,

        Vapourwear, Esq.

        1. and gets shat upon by an insane, ignorant state;

          Not ignorant, but malignant. They’re the ones with the mens rea in all of this.

          1. Sorry, ignorant was being used in my dialectical sense as in “dickish.”

            1. I forgot that you yinzers don’t speak English. 😉

              1. It’s okay, so did I.

        2. She didn’t everything right. She never should have told the asshole cop she had a gun.

          If I ever got pulled over while LEGALLY (as far as I know in this fucking state) transporting my firearms to the range, I still wouldn’t tell the cops unless they asked.

          1. If a JBT asks, is it the law that you answer?

            What are they authorized to do if you simply stare blankly, shrug, or even sa, “I don’t feel inclined to answer about any of the contents of my car to you?”

            I know it’s probably a beating, but legally, what is the JBT allowed under the law to do?

            1. It sounds like she volunteered the information – she wasn’t answering a question unless the story I read was incorrect.

              1. That’s what I read as well, she volunteered the information, being a good sport. But I was curious, if a police officer asks if you have a gun/weapon in the car, is a person required to answer? Or, if not answering, did he break a law?

          2. There are states that have CCW license rules that require a carrier to volunteer such information in the event of a traffic stop such as this. I don’t know if PA is one of those states.

            1. So, it might go along with getting a driver’s license. Drat.

        3. I might have missed it, but the same judge and prosecutor let a pro football player off the hook for beating his wife unconscious. Or girlfriend. “First time offender, no record, blah blah blah”.

          That alone would send both of them to jail in my book.

          1. That alone would send both of them to jail hang from the nearest lampost in my book.

            In a sane world…

          2. Your book is not the same book they are using. In their book violence and property rights are not the primary concern of the Stat – Social Justice is the primary concern of the State. It’s clear, when reading their book, that Allen should be locked up for her crime against society and that a societal victimless crime of gf/wife beating should not be punished.

        4. Concur. Fuck New Jersey. (And New York, and Massachussetts.)

        5. Too bad she is not a spouse abusing sports celebrity. Here in New Mexico, she would not have even been violating the law, and there is no way we let domestic violence defendants onto Pre-Prosecution Diversion programs.

    2. I put in $50

    3. She’s named Shaneen? lol

  3. These first two articles of the day cant be happening in real life.

    1. Of course they can, this is Murika, fuck yeah! The greatest mostest freest country in all da murl! If you don’t agree with that, move to North Korea!

      1. Yeah, without all these common sense laws, we would be just like SOMALIA!!11!!

        1. Somalia, most libertarian country ever!

        2. We are marching to Somalia…

          1. With the Eagle and the Sword…

  4. Srsly, extra charges for HP ammo?

    I wonder what the NJ costumed commandos carry? Highly over-penetrating FMJ? Doubt it.

    Gotta love when the nannies start banning safety equipment like suppressors and ammo designed to stay inside its INTENDED target…

    Fucking morons.

    1. That’s because the people writing the gun laws are the people who are most ignorant regarding guns.

      1. Very few people can maintain the cognitive dissonance needed to be both anti-gun and factually knowledgeable about guns. It’s almost like once you understand something it ceases to be terrifying.

        1. Guns, drugs, gays (is that offensive, I’m super-rural, I really don’t know), foreigners and economics.

          All things people are afraid of, all things that often turn out pretty awesome once you learn about them.

          1. I find the opposite is generally true when it comes to people. Familiarity breeds contempt.

            1. Depends on the person.

          2. The preferred phrasing is “Mexicans, pot and ass sex”. And guns.

            I think “gay” is still OK to say.

            1. But not “the gays”.

      2. It seems the people writing all laws are the ones that are the most ignorant about the way things actually work. Like a doctor trying to convince .gov pill counters that 100x3mg pills of oxy is an appropriate prescription for a man with a necrotized hip bone.

        “But that’s a lot of pills, and this-a here piece of paper says that’s bad, so fuck your patient who is too young for a hip replacement, oh and also your medical license.”

    2. Yes, I am responding to myself.

      N.J.S.A 2C:39-3f(1) limits the possession of hollow nose ammunition. However, there is a general exception that allows for the purchase of this ammunition but restricts the possession of it to specified locations. This exception provides that:

      (2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)].

      Thus a person may purchase this ammunition and keep it within the confines of his property. Sub section f (1) further exempts from the prohibited possession of hollow nose ammunition “persons engaged in activities pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f. . . .”
      N.J.S.A 26:39-3f. (1).

      Activities contained in N.J.S.A 26:39-6f. can be broken down as follows:

      A member of a rifle or pistol club organized under rules of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and which filed its charter with the State Police;
      A person engaged in hunting or target practice with a firearm legal for hunting in this State;
      A person going directly to a target range, and;
      A person going directly to an authorized place for “practice, match, target, trap or skeet shooting exhibitions.”

      1. Typos aside, WTF? We can effective ammunition for hunting and play, but not serious social work? It’s almost like their values are inverted.

        1. It’s kind of a moot point because you can’t get a carry permit in New Jersey anyway.

          1. You have to get a specific ID card just to buy allowable long guns. It’s beyond insane.

            1. And you have to get a separate individual permit every time for every pistol you want to purchase.

              1. It’s all meant to discourage responsible ownership and effectively disarm the population.

                As stupid as NY’s gun laws are, NJ’s are far worse.

          2. Moot point ammo is illegal, too, WTF.

            1. I shot a deer once with a moot point round. Made him completely irrelevant.

              1. Was it the deer that bit your sister?

                1. No, reali! Deer bites ken be quite nasti!

          3. “Moot” means open to discussion.

            1. Technically. But it also seems to have acquired an additional definition as well.

              1. Like how literally literally means figuratively.

            2. Full Definition of MOOT
              a : open to question : debatable
              b : subjected to discussion : disputed
              deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

              1. The “Ent Moot” from Return of the King is a perfect example of how this word has two definitions that are seemingly at odds with each other but, really aren’t.

                1. Debate/Discussion definition is more commonly used in the UK. I think in the US it’s more regularly used as the “it’s academic” definition.

                  At least, that’s what my extensive experience reading the Brit sports pages tells me…

              2. But it isn’t deprived of practical significance, made abstract or purely academic, they are using the law to persecute through prosecution. Far, far, from academic.

    3. I know ex-cops at the range I shoot at who can carry concealed, but not Hollow-Points. When they told me I asked about the dangers of over-penetration, etc… They know it’s the dumbest rule ever but have no choice.

  5. Sounds like a sword being unsheathed but smells like injustice. Hopefully this is the case that shows how pathetically cruel, pointless, and abjectly stupid New Jersey’s gun laws are.

    1. Hopefully this is the case that shows how pathetically cruel, pointless, and abjectly stupid New Jersey’s gun laws are.

      And that is why the prosecutor and judge will not back down – backing down would be an overt admission that these laws are senseless and stupid. Therefore, they must enforce them to the letter to maintain the pretense that they actually make some kind of sense and shouldn’t be struck down.

      1. WTF is exactly right. There is no way they will back down on prosecution – if they did then it highlights a) how stupid and absurd the law is, and b) that the intent of the law is to disarm NJ citizens and is a violation of 2A rights.

        The only thing that can save her is nullification.

      2. I think you give the Judge and Prosecutor credit for more thinking than they have done. I think that what they are is one of the Lower Oders has had the unmitigated gall to arm herself, flouting the wisdom of her betters. I would call it racism, but I don’t know what races either the Judge or the Prosecutor disgraces.

        One of the Peasants has gotten uppity. She must be squashed.

        1. ^This^

          Along with a large dose of “The law is the law,” “Ignorance is no excuse,” and of course “Respect mah authoritay!” mindsets.

          1. Although “the law is the law” is usually a line spouted by vermin, it is a point. The Law, as established, should be enforced. But it should be enforced evenly, not just when it happens to fit an officeholder’s notions of political expedience. That is where New Jersey politicians excel; no matter which party they may espouse, they are all about the prerogatives of the political class. Always. In all cases.

            I suspect that this is what’s really in back of this outrage; the New Jersey pols, uncomfortably aware that any rational society would shoot them, are very nervous about an armed public. They needn’t be; the New Jersey public is far too jaded to lynch the two-legged ticks that batten on them. In fact the respectable people of New Jersey view the Government as one might a disreputable carnival or fly-by-night one ring circus; sleazy and occasionally entertaining, but hardly worth the effort.

            With a little luck, and a lot of pro bono work, this case will end up before the Supreme Court and we will have another Chicago situation. Probably, however, the New Jersey parasite class will see where that is likely to go and quietly issue the lady with a pardon, or drop charges, or whatever they need to do to make it go away.

            1. If Obama gets to appoint, or more likely annoint, a new Justice or two, this lady may end up being executed.

            2. “The Law, as established, should be enforced.”

              Bad laws should be repealed, and when brought to trial, routinely nullified by thinking jurors. You can rest assured that the prosecutors in this case will allow few if any thinking beings on the jury.

  6. This is particularly strange because our system of justice is usually so merciful to African Americans.

    That’s sarcasm.

    1. Based on the ‘justice system’ alone, I can’t understand why African Americans are not mostly Libertarian? Throw in school choice and other concerns particularly poignent to urban life and poverty and I really don’t understand why most African Americans are not Libertarian. So confusing for a social/ethnic group to willingly act against their own economic and security interests.

      Is anything about my question racist? It must be, I’m thinking about race and politics in a non-blue team way.

      1. I can’t understand why African Americans are not mostly Libertarian? Throw in school choice and other concerns particularly poignent to urban life and poverty and I really don’t understand why most African Americans are not Libertarian.

        No free shit?

      2. I really don’t understand why most African Americans are not Libertarian. So confusing for a social/ethnic group to willingly act against their own economic and security interests.

        The Kapos are rewarded quite well for keeping the prisoners in line.

        1. +1

          Apropos and super sad. Hard to believe it’s meager government free shit and self serving power seekers that are able to drive almost an entire ethnic/social group to act against their own interests. Does any African American really feel like they are safe, secure, and have an equal opportunity to prosper under this incarnation of the State?

          Still baffled how so many can be so…misled.

      3. Blacks are not Libertarian because black identity is paramount to most everything – including personal decision. If you’ve ever been privy to a large group of black people gathered for any talk of policy or substance, a majority of the time you will hear something along the lines of “we blacks must…”. Most everything is tied to our race – they continue to vote for Obama, even though they bash him in private, because they can’t been seen as not having a strong front. The collectivist attitude is what most blacks attribute any positive outcome for black people even in the face of evidence that suggests otherwise. Blacks are conditioned to believe that our collective political action leads to better things based off of one arguable success – the Civil Rights Movement. Nothing else.

  7. She’s screwed.


  8. Nicola Bocour of Ceasefire NJ told the Associated Press, “ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law.”

    “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”

  9. Where is Fat Boy on this? Anyone ask him about his state’s “common sense gun laws”?

      1. Sorry Rich, Swiss Servitor was two minutes ahead of you, that’s not a Jinx collision.

        1. But, but … I didn’t *refresh*!

          *** pouts ***

    1. Fat Man is going to stay as far away from this as he can for as long as he can. He knows his gun stance will sink his presidential aspirations and wants to avoid having to talk about it for as long as possible.

    2. Fat Boy is on record saying he supports New Jersey’s gun laws. So fuck him.

      1. One more reason to not vote for that fat fuck.

    3. Does Christie have an armed security detail? The next time he goes to another state, that state should arrest the detail.

  10. Her trial, scheduled for October 6, will pit New Jersey’s draconian gun laws against compassion and common sense.

    But where do “common-sense gun laws” fit into this mix?

    Seriously, this should be an interesting trial.

    1. These are “common sense gun laws”, just ask any leftist.

  11. I’ll tell you what she did wrong, she had a gun while black. Unfortunately she did not also carry the pro sports player card. The laws don’t matter because black people with guns, unless they play sports, are scary.

    1. Unfortunately she did not also carry the pro sports player card.

      That didn’t save Plaxico Burress.

      1. I think that’s mostly because his gun up and shot him in the leg. If it had stayed asleep he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble. You can get in a lot of trouble for not keeping your gun on a tight leash.

        1. They are sneaky little critters. I have to keep a close watch on mine.

          1. My 1911 keeps crawling out of the bedside table and rooting through the trash. It racks dish-ra-prin.

      2. It may be in reference to the pro football player who beat his wife unconscious and the same judge and prosecutor let him go because he was a first offender etc etc etc.

  12. This is an excellent opportunity to inform the New Jersey populace of Jury Nullification. This is why we are guaranteed a JURY OF OUR PEERS. Our founding fathers knew Govt. would overreach and pass ridiculous, asinine, unconstitutional laws. I’ve always wanted a jury to find person not guilty through nullification and answer a judge FYTW.

    1. But the government is us.

      People get the government they deserve, at least in our current setup.

    2. And the judge will instruct the jury that are required to decide only based on the law, and whether the law was violated or not. They are very careful to discourage any thoughts of nullification, and to weed out any potential jurors who might be inclined to nullify based on the jury pool questions and answers. The system is rigged from top to bottom.

      1. The judge can instruct all he or she wants, but if a jury decides not to follow those instructions, there is no legal ability to either overrule or punish the jurors.

        So, the judges instructions would seem to fit the latter definition of “moot point”.

      2. Voir dire is a terrible idea, at least the way it is currently done. If the method is to be used at all, I believe it would be better to have disinterested attorneys who have been briefed doing it.

  13. lol, compassion and common sense? Doesnt mix well with the legal system.

    1. My thoughts and prayer for Mrs. Allen and her children. Please look to links and help this mother and law abiding citizen.…..-save-her/

  14. If she is convicted, then Christie will have to pardon her or kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye. Hope he pardons even if it means having to suffer a chance of him being the GOP nominee.

    1. Why would doing the right thing and pardoning someone who did nothing wrong scuttle a presidential bid?

      Oh, yeah. Nevermind

    2. Sometimes even sleazebags can help protect liberty, for all the wrong reasons.

    3. Christie needs to step in now, not after she is convicted.

      Call the DA and say “Drop the charges, or else I will pre-emptively pardon her and campaign against you, personally. And start the process to strip you of your license. “

  15. Can a Gun Owner Get Justice in New Jersey?

    Depends on what you mean by “justice.” Proggie justice, which means coming with inventive ways to criminalize their political opponents, yes. Real justice, no.

  16. Because this is a felony in NJ if she’s convicted she’ll be permanently stripped of her constitutionally guaranteed right to own a firearm (or even ammunition) under federal law, so she’ll no longer legally be allowed to protect herself in Pennsylvania either. A constitutional guarantee isn’t what it used to be.

    1. Won’t the State protect her? It’s foolish to think she can protect herself better than the police who are actively in pursuit of voilent criminals and thieves 24/7.

      1. You funny man, Freddy.

        I kill you last.

        Which will still be long before the cops get there.

        1. Interesting, so one might say the police are reactive and not proactive in stopping any real crimes. The best they can do is call someone to take my already cold and rigid body to the morgue and then returning to arresting more easily found non-violent “criminals”.

          Time to go kill someone selling non-taxed tobacco products?

  17. “Mistakes happen,” Allen told Fox News. “I just hope that everything turns out OK for me and my kids, because I’m all they have.”

    Those kids will be far better off in foster care than the care of that gun-toting nutcase of a mother. #FULL PROGTARD

    It looks like her fate will be determined by a jury’s willingness to do the right thing, which in this case means ignoring an unjust law.

    IOW, she’s fucked. This whole story is a rage inducing nutpunch. Thanks, Reason!

  18. You’re gonna send her up the river for a decade for “deterence”? Completely immoral stance, yet we hear it over and over again. “We gotta make an example” and “deterence” are arguments against impartial justice.

  19. I agree with you guys that some compassion should be shown here. However, I am not going to go to Singapore and test their drug laws.

    One should not come to NY/NJ and test our gun laws.

    However, I don’t believe this lady deserves more than a three year sentence. Which in Jersey can be completed in 10-12 months MAX with good behavior.
    The constitution says there exists the rights to bare arms. This has been danced in both directions by the pro/anti gun people. Let’s keep this at the state level and gun people stay in their states with their guns.

    1. Did you read the article? She wasn’t “testing” their gun laws.

      Also, please explain why you think Allen “deserves” to be in prison for three years and why her children should be motherless for three years? I’m not seeing that she deserves anything but to be left alone.

      1. I think she should write to Christie for a pardon or a suspended sentence.

    2. Come to my state and “test” our patience with nonsense like that. Don’t you realize that N.J. is flooded with criminals who don’t respect gun prohibition? What do the law-abiding do when confronted with any aggressive threat? Hold up a suitably thick law book?

      Ms. Allen’s mistake was to “Bare Arms” in the first place – very nice and ironic pun you made – that WAS A PUN, wasn’t it??

    3. The constitution says there exists the rights to bare arms.

      Good to know that the constitution protects the right to flash my biceps in my wife-beater shirt.

    4. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      There is no federalism on gun rights. If the 2A can be read as “the states can do what they want” then sure as fuck the 1A which explicitly refers only to Congress can be too.

      So we’re setting up the premise under which all of our liberties can be curtailed, since the 2A is the strongest and least ambiguously worded of the amendments.

      1. Like I said, the Supreme Court over the Years has danced this to mean it can be liminted.

        1. Like I said, the Supreme Court’s gonna dance its way all over the rest of our rights. It’s not your factual statement but your seeming endorsement of the status quo that I take issue with.

          1. Some people in this country seem ok with armed citizens walking around.

            Some don’t. And it appears that we are setup in this country so that we can have both.

            Gun owners can go to states with their guns in which it is ok. This is true for abortion, guns, marijuana, and other things.

            However, it is ill-advised to test a law.

            And, if she didn’t know after living in PA that NJ and NY is strict on guns, I don’t know what to say.

            1. There is no federalism on gun laws. Did you not read what I wrote? The Second Amendment permits no exceptions, your feelings be damned.

              Don’t like it? Call up a Constitutional Convention and get it changed.

              1. You can’t argue against feeling based logic.

    5. Which in Jersey can be completed in 10-12 months MAX with good behavior.

      And after she gets out and can’t find a job because nobody wants to hire a convicted felon, I’m sure her life will be just swell. And her kids will probably be just fine, maybe even better off in foster care for the 10-12 months that she’s in jail (after all, their mom’s clearly a gun toting menace to all that is good in this world).

      Good God, you’re a worthless piece of shit. Do the rest of the world a favor and become an hero.

      1. Why did she come to NJ with her gun?

        She’s not from North Dakota. She’s from PA and they know about New Jersey’s Gun Laws.

        I would have shown clemency on this person.

        I still feel that she has a good shot in getting a pardon from the Governor.

        1. She should be getting a pardon from the President, and the DOJ should be throwing the book at the local cops.

          Of course, the NFA should be thrown out as unconstitutional, then the ATF should be disbanded and everyone persecuted by it pardoned as well.

          But that would depend upon us living under the rule of law, which we do not.

          1. I think what is bothering you is the dynamics of the law and the interpretation process.

            That is always based on who appoints the KINGs (SCOTUS).

            If you think about it, SCOTUS is the king of America. That it says goes as we don’t have a congress that can overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

            1. Alice, I know how the system works. I have a problem with how it works. It appears that you do not. What I am illustrating is how it should work, based upon a straightforward reading of the laws buttressed by the writings of the people who created them.

              There are many facets of the Constitution I don’t like (that Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, for example) but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Unless and until that fact is changed (and it can be changed), it is incumbent upon our lawmakers, executives, and jurists to uphold the law.

              That of course requires a public willing to hold their feet to the fire when they fail to do their jobs. Which means you, as well as I, need to forgo political expediency for the greater cause of upholding principle.

            2. Moreover, as regards the Supreme Court, in large part its rulings are enabling rather than forbidding. Just because the Supreme Court signs off on something as hunky-dory doesn’t mean the legislatures who passed the law and the executives who enforced it should be off the hook.

              The Supreme Court is only “king-like” when it forbids things. Roe v. Wade, whatever your take on it, is such a ruling because it involved the Supremes ruling that a state cannot make a particular law.

              When it comes to gun rights, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the states or the feds must pass certain laws, and they have only rarely and tepidly ruled that governments must not pass certain laws. By and large their rulings consist of assent to the status quo.

              1. I don’t know the details, but I do believe that SCOTUS rulled that the 2nd amendment can be limited. I believe this is how we keep people from boarding planes with guns and the silly registration process.

                I will give you my opinion:

                I think gun registration, background checks, and policies of the such are completely useless. These policies only hinder people that want to buy guns for sport or for nobn-crminial intent. The criminal does non of this.

                And, if the 2nd amendment is so absolute, you can argue that criminals have a right to bare arms. Some states are trying to make it so that convicted felons can bare arms.

                I can buy a gun illegal much easier than buying one legally. I can also manufacture a gun in my Garage or basement. The gun laws are silly.

                However, I like what we have in NYC. No one is allowed to walk around with a loaded firearm. If you do, you go to jail for a pretty long time. And, I’m happy and many citizens here are happy.

                I don’t want to take guns away from the people in the south that love their guns. They just can’t bring their guns here.

                1. They just can’t bring their guns here.

                  The whole point is that the Second Amendment forbids you from imposing such a restriction.

                  And yes, this means felons have the same rights as non-felons. Restricting access to firearms is not a power of the government.

                  Sellers of guns can still conduct background checks and refuse to sell to people if they want. Airlines can still forbid firearms on board their plans if they want. And you can still forbid firearms on your own property if you want.

                  What you cannot due is use the force of government to impose those restrictions on people who have not consented to your authority over them. Having the consent of a majority of your neighbors does not trump the supremacy of the Constitution.

                  Also, at the end of the day, what you are arguing for is that people should be thrown in jail for offending your sensibilities. At no point did this woman use or even intend to use her gun, she only possessed it.

                  1. The whole point is that the Second Amendment forbids you from imposing such a restriction

                    You and I keep arguing the same thing. You claim it is clear. I say it is not.
                    Fromt he looks of the controversy over the last several decades, I feel that I am right, it is controversial and appears to be open to interpretation. If that wasn’t the case, the NJ law would had been overturned years ago.

                    This is not the first, middle, or last defendent to argue this point in NY and NJ.

                    1. There is no ambiguity in the Second Amendment. There is no way it can mean anything other than “the government can’t stop people from having guns”. Any other reading of the law falls for either of the following fallacies:

                      1. Claiming that the first clause (“A well-regulated militia”) is normative despite it being a dependent clause and despite it contradicting the obviously normative (“shall not be infringed”) second clause.

                      2. The phrase “the people” does not refer to actual people, but some abstract generalization thereof. In which case, the entire Constitution becomes meaningless since “the people” is nobody and everybody all at once. Why do “the people” need to tell themselves that they can have guns?

                    2. I am completely bald (shaven and natually).

                      I don’t doubt that a lair (I mean a Lawyer) has the ability to convince 12 americans that i have long blond hair.

                      People bend the rules.

                      Guiliani in NYC used a 1950’s burglar tool law to seize the cars of people that commit DUI offenses.

                    3. According to you, people abuse power, and we should give them more power.

                      Did you intend for your philosophy to make no sense, or did you just never bother to examine the inherent contradiction?

    6. someone is doing a bit, right? no one is as stupid as Alice Bowie pretends to be day in and day out.

  20. I don’t know if this has been asked already, but where’s the NRA? Where are all the gun-nuts (term used affectionately)pouring in support for legal aid and a new gun for Shaneen?

    1. Shit, just saw the comment above. Never mind.

  21. That “Standard Advice” has a big disclaimer at the top:

    “If you are involved in a traffic stop while carrying concealed, use your best judgement and respect the officer(s) that you encounter. We are not lawyers or anything else of that nature, so please review and verify your local laws so that you are in compliance.”

    The key here is “best judgement” and “verify your local laws”. The accused changed her locality when she passed the “Welcome to N.J.” sign.

  22. Legal Illiterate here. How is this not covered by Article IV, Section 1 (Full Faith and Credit)? Is her gun permit not an official act of the state of Pennsylvania?

    Or do I have an outdated copy, since it doesn’t have the added text “Unless we think the acts are icky.” in it?

    1. Yours doesn’t include the recent Article Fuck You That’s Why.

      1. I was afraid of that. Time to update the secret decoder ring.

  23. I brought this case up at work yesterday.

    My co-worker: “See, there’s way too many guns on the street”

    Me, trying to be ‘reasonable’: “Maybe so, but she bought it legally in Philly”

    Co-worker: “Yeah but what if someone stole it from her car and used it to shoot up a school”

    Me: Sipped coffee and cried inside.

    1. Doesn’t matter it was purchased in a Jurisdiction in which it is legal. It matters if you decide to travel into a jurisdiciton where it is not legal. This is the rule of law.

      1. I understand the situation you bootlicking prog.

        1. I don’t think I’ve ever been called that.

          1. As many times as you have posted here and no one called you that? Really?

      2. This is the rule of law.

        No, there is a higher law. It’s called the Constitution. Every legislator and executive officer at the national level takes an oath to uphold it, and every state is bound by its own ratification of the Constitution to follow it.

        The imprimatur of the Supreme Court is not some magic decoder ring for understanding the law. Just because they permit something doesn’t mean it’s legal.

        The rule of law means that when you can’t get what you want because the law does not allow it, you don’t twist the wording of the law to get what you want, you instead accept that you can’t get what you want. Principle over political expediency.

        1. You know we agree on this?

          The rule of law allows one to hire a liar (i mean a lawyer) to completely twist the facts. District Attorney’s and Defense Lawyers do this all day, every day.

          1. The facts can only be twisted as far as the judges and jurors allow.

            The problem with democracy is that everybody gets the government that the majority deserves.

  24. Can someone please provide a link to an article about the ACLU rushing to this poor woman’s defense?

    1. You’re a funny lass.

      After the Heller ruling, which explicitly stated that 2A protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU updated their webpage about 2A to explicitly declare that they thought that SCOTUS was wrong to so declare.

      Which is why I’ve never given the ACLU a dime.

      1. the ACLU updated their webpage about 2A to explicitly declare that they thought that SCOTUS was wrong to so declare.

        Unpossible. I have been assured on this very site that the “L” in ACLU is for “Liberty”.

  25. The amendment reads:
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    As I mentioned earlier, depending on who is in power, it can be enforced in many ways.

    “The people” may or may not represent each individual. It may apply to the representatives of the people. Or, it can mean each an every person.

    One can almost argue that only in the context of establishing a state militia does the freedom to own a gun exists.

    And of course, there exists the fundamental human right of protecting one’s self.

    I don’t think it is BLACK/WHITE either way.

    1. Fuck off troll. It is black and white. Your refusal to accept it is just a bs argument to impose your opinion (through the power of the state) on free people.

      There is a right to keep and bear arms just as there is a right to religious practice – if NJ outlawed carrying a bible on your person and arrested her for having a bible on her against “NJ law” would that be Constitutional?

      My rights do not depend on you or some court’s ruling my rights do or don’t exist. NJ has the power here, but it is WRONG and little more than a fascist entity.

      1. If it were black and right it would read, in black and white, “the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        It doesn’t read that.

        I’m not arguing either way here even though I myself don’t own a gun. I am saying it is a controversy due to the ambiguous way it was written.

        But you can go ahead and call that trolling.

        I think the Jury will (or may) hang or she will be convicted. I doubt it will be a Not Guilty in NJ. Especially in Atlantic County.

        1. I want to add that I believe Ms. Allen should go to trial as the minimun sentence is the most she will receive.

          Even if some asshole judge gives a harsher sentence, it will be dropped down in appeals.

          I also believe that, if she has the free money, she can get a hung-jury perhaps two or three times.

          NJ will throw everything they have at this one go keep the gun laws. The people of NJ don’t want people from other states coming in with guns…at least from the spirit of the law.

        2. If the Second Amendment is ambiguous, then every other amendment is even more so. Seriously, read the other amendments and find one that is written in stronger and less ambiguous language.

          Even the Third Amendment allows exceptions in wartime as “prescribed by law”.

          So does the Bill of Rights mean nothing at all? If our rights can be rescinded because the founders decided to forgo perfect logical formalism (a concept that didn’t really exist at the time), then we ought all bow before the state right now because we don’t stand a chance.

          1. Listen kbolino,

            My Lawyer friends refer to it as the DUI exemption to the constitution.

            In DUI matters in this country and in various other matters, the constitution has been thrown in the garbage.

            You can argue all you want that we are “innocent until proven guilty”.

            Do you remember OJ Simpson?
            Where was he until he was found “Not Guilty”?

            If you have money and influence, one can get around.

            In NJ, when cops are arrested in DUIs, they don’t take breath-a-lyzer tests and are found NOT GUILTY by a judge (effectively, another cop).

            I do feel for your concern that our system is completely broken. And, I do agree even if we disagree on this one point.

            1. Alice,

              For the last fucking time I understand the difference between rule of law and rule of man.

              If you are willing to accept the rule of man when it is politically convenient to you, then you can’t turn around and complain about it when it isn’t convenient to you.

              Special pleading is all fine and dandy until you remember that you aren’t the only pleader.

            2. Alice, I apologize my excess passion.

              The point is that I believe our society is based on the nebulous notion of a “social contract”. To me this means I as a free person in a free country agree to certain rules that imply obligations and rights. There is more than just the Constitution that embodies that social contract, but the Constitution is a big big part of it. I agree to the terms as long as the rest of you (including “state” and other government constructs) don’t violate the agreement.
              I am a sort of signatory to the contract and so when I believe the state or some citizen has violated substantially their obligations to the contract . . . the contract is VOID.
              I do not accept the authority of NJ (though I must accept its power) to punish me for keeping a firearm for self protection so long as I don’t use to for harmful purposes.
              You can argue the niceties of “law” all you want, but to many of us – when the state violates our contract and that leads to anarchy (in a bad sense) because people feel they’re abused. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s interpretations it has to do with MINE.

  26. The only way this poor woman goes free is if she changes her name to David Gregory.

  27. I have ambivalent feelings about this. It sounds like she knew she had the gun when she crossed into NJ. She may consider Atlantic City and other parts of Sopranoland to be crime-ridden cesspits, but if she doesn’t like it, she doesn’t have to go there.

    There should, however, be protection for lawful gun owners *transiting* an anti-gun state, if the gun is kept locked, unloaded, and inaccessible in their car trunk.

    If they lock her up for serious time (rather than just a scare)Pennsylvania should look for NJ license plates to pull over and lock up on any charges they can make stick. Then they could negotiate a prisoner exchange.

  28. I’m not going to attempt to excuse New Jersey’s stupid laws or its moronic “justice” system. I certainly hope she manages to get a jury which has some comprehension of its true role in our legal system and an awareness of “jury nullification”. But I have a problem with the statement that that “Allen did not realize that her carry permit, unlike her driver’s license, was no good in New Jersey.”

    Every CWP holder knows about NJ’s draconian laws. Perhaps someone from Kansas or somewhere far away might be able to make that claim, but I find it incomprehensible that a resident of Philadelphia could. That’s right across the river from NJ, and any handgun safety instructor would have made a big deal of the risks of carrying across that border only a few miles away. The fact that she even knew about reciprocity means that it had been covered, so she either slept through that portion of the class or is trying to excuse a boneheaded mistake by claiming ignorance.

  29. It’s not so bad if you’re black, rich, and just beat your wife. Her crime is being a wife, having children to depend on her, and mostly being a ‘productive honest armed citizen’. After all, whose political agenda is she helping?

    Anti-gun Bloomberg types would never tolerate an upstanding black mom defensively arming herself.

  30. I suggest a 42 USC 1983 civil rights suit. The only thing Christie and the DA will understand is that which hits them in the wallet. There are not only MacDonald v. Illinois issues, but interstate commerce clause issues as well. New Jersey will have a hard time proving even general criminal intent in a matter like this. A U.S. Marine is currently rotting in a Mexican jail because he made a wrong turn and inadvertently crossed into Mexico. New Jersey is not Mexico no matter how bad the Democrats want it to be.

  31. Honesty does not seem to be a good idea for honest people. hopefully a jury of 12 can let those children have their mother back home!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.