Man Jailed For Legally Owning Gun Publishes Book

progressivestoday.com ^ | 10-19-2014 | Pat Kane

[servo1969]

While Brian Aitken’s The Blue Tent Sky: How The Left’s War On Guns Cost Me My Son And My Freedom is written is an unassuming and accessible way, it is by no means an ‘easy read.’ In fact, it will likely be the most difficult book you’ll ever read.

Brian Aitken is a man who was forced into a tragedy thought inconceivable in the United States — being stripped of his family and his freedom all for owning a gun in New Jersey. When Brian was pulled over in 2009 he had not committed any crimes, the guns he would be charged with illegally possessing was legally purchased, transported, and even stored while moving it to his new apartment in Hoboken. An outstanding citizen and entrepreneur, Brian could not have done more to follow strictly the letter of the law.

Sadly, this would do nothing to stop an activist judge from sentencing Brian to seven years in prison under bogus charges as a deterrent to other gun owners.

Brian sat in a federal prison for 161 days before being released by Governor Chris Christie. Though Brian was not forced to spend his felony sentence in jail he has had to suffer the effects of it ever since. Despite the fact that Brian was exonerated of any wrongdoing he still maintains his convicted felon status, meaning that Brian can not longer vote, own a gun, travel abroad, or see his son.

In his book, Brian eloquently states that if he was to be made an example of by the state of New Jersey, he was not going to be the example they wanted him to be. Brian has fought his wrongful conviction at every turn and has been a voice for those also being targeted by New Jersey’s vicious anti-gun laws.

Last year Brian began a crowdfunding campaign to write his memoir, petition the Supreme Court, and regain custody of his son. After his project was banned by Kickstarter for ‘not meeting the company’s guidelines,’ it eventually found a home on Indiegogo where the project raised over $40,000 by pre-selling more than a thousand copies of a yet unwritten book.

After an arduous year of writing and painstaking research, Brian’s memoir is finally available online and in bookstores around the country.

If you can resist the temptation to travel to New Jersey and pelt your hardback copy at gun hating prosecutors and judges, then The Blue Tent Sky can easily be read in a day or two. That being said, overcoming this urge may prove very difficult for anyone with a modicum of reverence for the United States Constitution.

Brian is a man who no matter how many times he is kicked refuses to stay down. While his story is unique, it could easily become the story of any gun owning citizen. Please consider supporting Brian by ordering his book here.

[servo1969]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

[rarestia]

New Jersey is my birth state, but I’ve been a Floridian for all but my first year of life. I thank God regularly for my parents’ clarity to get the Hell out of the liberal armpit of America. I will never go back to that state for any reason.

[detective]

“Man Jailed For Legally Owning Gun”

There but for the grace of God go I.

[W.Lee]

The only way I would visit New Jersey is in a plane crash.

[rarestia]

I’d try to jump before I got to the border. They’d probably cite me for skydiving without a chute and sue my estate though.

[Robert DeLong]

From Wikipedia:
During the jury instructions, Judge Morley did not charge the jury with the exemptions to the New Jersey law despite arguments by the defense that Aitken met one of the exemptions and was therefore innocent of the charges. The jury returned three times requesting to be made aware of the laws that provide exemptions for lawful possession; however, all three requests were denied by the judge.

One of the jury requests read:

"Why did you make us aware at the start of the trial that the law allows a person to carry a weapon if the person is moving or going to a shooting range, and during the trial both the defense and prosecution presented testimony as to whether or not the defendant was in the process of moving, and then in your charge for us to deliberate we are not permitted to take into consideration whether or not we believe the defendant was moving?"

In an interview with ABC News, Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, stated:

"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another."

Roughly a week after Aitken's trial the presiding judge, James Morley, became one of only two sitting judges not reappointed to their life-term by Governor Chris Christie.

Morley insists he was kicked off the bench unfairly after he acquitted a Moorestown, NJ police officer of animal cruelty charges after the officer molested several calves.

That police officer, Robert Melia, was later convicted of 22 unrelated charges including sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child and official misconduct.

I would think this judge could be brought up on charges of misconduct. If not, why not. We should demand that judges be held accountable.

[Brother Cracker]

[Robert DeLong]

Prices at Amazon are:

21.01 - Hardcover
$7.39 - Kindle

[Blue Jays]

This case was and is a complete miscarriage of justice to Brian Aitken and his family.
It clearly illustrates why judges should not be permitted to pompously pontificate from the bench.
Will order a copy of the book TODAY to show my support. Thanks for sharing.

[Brother Cracker]

Judge James Morley

[WomBom]

He looks like the judge from Miracle on 34th Street… without the gray hair….

[OneWingedShark]

The Jury should have returned a Not Guilty verdict — if the presumption of innocence is to be upheld, then to deny them access to the actual law is to deny them access to the item by which they are to measure the prosecution's argument. (IOW, with no law, there is no guilt.)

[Robert DeLong]

If I had been on that jury I would have voted not guilty and hung the jury at worse, but the real problem is the prosecutors & the judge. The jury was trying to weigh the law along with instructions they were given. They can be excused because many of them do not know better. At least that is my opinion. The prosecutors & judge knew they were trampling justice for the sake of agenda, and justice be damned. They should now be faced with justice of their own in the very system they used unjustly.

[Robert DeLong]

BTW, you are not suggesting that all laws be done away with are you? If you are saying that laws need to be examined to see if they aid in the execution of an orderly society, and those that are not are tossed while keeping those we all agree are needed. Then I am with you on that front. A society without laws would soon fall apart.

[OneWingedShark]

BTW, you are not suggesting that all laws be done away with are you?

Obviously not.

If you are saying that laws need to be examined to see if they aid in the execution of an orderly society, and those that are not are tossed while keeping those we all agree are needed. Then I am with you on that front. A society without laws would soon fall apart.

Not quite what I was getting at; I was touching more on philosophy and jurisprudence — should a body whose existence is the determination of guilt/innocence [the Jury] be denied access to the very law that is being used to accuse the person, then they must rely on some other entity and cannot legitimately be said to be deciding on their own.

[Future Snake Eater]

Agreed. It sounds like they were putting an awful lot of stock in what the judge told them, but, if I understand it correctly, the jury can render their verdict independent of any judicial instruction. I am not a lawyer, though, nor have I served on a jury, so I really don’t know.

[OneWingedShark]

Agreed. It sounds like they were putting an awful lot of stock in what the judge told them, but, if I understand it correctly, the jury can render their verdict independent of any judicial instruction. I am not a lawyer, though, nor have I served on a jury, so I really don’t know.

They can.
And they must be able to; for if they cannot then there is nothing stopping the courts from giving the instruction you will find him guilty.

[Robert DeLong]

Not quite what I was getting at; I was touching more on philosophy and jurisprudence — should a body whose existence is the determination of guilt/innocence [the Jury] be denied access to the very law that is being used to accuse the person, then they must rely on some other entity and cannot legitimately be said to be deciding on their own

Ah, very good. Agreed.