[Growler]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The ones he was sent to prison for after getting convicted.


CAPS LOCK strikes.
You have already said the article doesn't tell the full story


So he was breaking the law and did get the mandatory punishment for breaking the law as set down in law.



Ah the article again
Obviously the article isn't telling the full story is it...damn that liberal media.


He claims he had looked up the laws, so either he didn't look them up or he was just chancing his arm with the hope of not getting caught.


Do you think denying a search will deny a search?

Capslock didn't strike, it was intentional for emphasis.

The defendant had the choice of denying the LEOs' request to search the vehicle, leaving them two options: Obtain the proper warrant, for which they would need to state a cause, or let the matter lie.

If he had done his research on the law and misinterpreted it, fine, his mistake. Or maybe he thought he wouldn't get caught, fine, his mistake, he got caught.

Let me restate my point, as it appears to remain unclear: The LEOs had no cause to search the vehicle, as there had been no crime committed to their knowledge at the time prior to the search. Until they searched the vehicle and discovered the questionable items, they had no knowledge of a law violation. Sure, once they discovered it, they acted in accordance with the law. I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is the manner in which the violation was discovered, and the manner in which the issue was handled.

Taking the piss over the article doesn't resolve the discussion. We know the article's flawed; "damning the liberal media" is a little much, especially since the article's angle, to me, seemed pro-gun, usually considered a trait of the conservative right.

I'm curious, Tribesman - your location shows Galway - are you an expat or transplanted American?

I get what you're saying: He broke the law, got caught, and must pay the sentence. In principle, I agree. In practice, I have found that "justice" is often applied inconsistently, even in the case of mandatory sentences, and calls into question the entire mandatory sentence program. This is one of those cases, where an (apparently) otherwise law-abiding citizen has erred in a manner that threatened no one, and will end up doing a longer stint in lockup than someone who peddled narcotics to kids.

The firearms violation appears to be a second-degree violation, while the narcotics offense appears to be a third-degree (lesser) violation, with a minimum sentence of up to five years (Source).

Also, per NJ Criminal Code:
2C:43-2b. Except as provided in subsection a. of this section and subject to the applicable provisions of the code, the court may suspend the imposition of sentence on a person who has been convicted of an offense... (Source)

So mitigating circumstances could absolutely have applied to the decision.