Shaheen Allen pardoned by NJ Governor

I'm putting this here as opposed to NJ or PA because of the questions about restoration of RKBA rights I raise.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-pardons-concealed-carry-owner-shaneen-allen/

Question: Will this pardon restore her RKBA rights? Why does my feeble brain keep wanting to tell me that has to be specifically included in the grant of pardon?

Question: Is "Full and free" the same as "full and absolute"? This one seems to have a conflict with itself in that it says it can be revoked - which to my mind is an issue of double jeopardy.

School me, oh gurus.

stay safe.

Christie pardons Shaneen Allen, but egregious laws remain

While Second Amendment activists across the landscape are cheering yesterday’s pardon of Pennsylvania resident Shaneen Allen by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the law that penalized the single mother for crossing the state line with her legally-licensed handgun remains on the books to snare other citizens.

http://www.examiner.com/article/christie-pardons-shaneen-allen-but-egregious-laws-remain

IMO, a pardon should be held as ipso facto nullification of the law. This is not only fair to all who have been or might later be affected by a bad law, but it will also raise the burden of responsibility of heads of state in regards to frivolous pardons of those guilty of malum en se laws.

Did some additional research. Seems she
1) never lost her PA RKBA rights
2) may have her NJ RKBA rights restored
3) will continue to be a federal prohibited person because a) it takes ATF to fix the federal record and b) Congress continues to forbit ATF from spending any money on restoration of federal RKBA rights

Also 4) a presidential pardon will do no good as it only applies to federal crimes.

Looks like she can purchase via private sale but a FFL's background check is going to come back as being denied - which will bring the cops which will begin another round that she will not win.

stay safe.

MAC702 said:

IMO, a pardon should be held as ipso facto nullification of the law. This is not only fair to all who have been or might later be affected by a bad law, but it will also raise the burden of responsibility of heads of state in regards to frivolous pardons of those guilty of malum en se laws.

Click to expand...

Really?

You really believe that the political process of forgiving someone who has clearly and convincingly broken the law and been convicted for doing so ought to be a nullification of that law?

Really?

Sorry for the apparent snak, but this declaration of yours suggests you really do not understand what a pardon is, or that you have no idea of how the nullification process works.

I'd really, truely like to have you explain how you reached your conclusion.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Really?

You really believe that the political process of forgiving someone who has clearly and convincingly broken the law and been convicted for doing so ought to be a nullification of that law?

Really?

Sorry for the apparent snak, but this declaration of yours suggests you really do not understand what a pardon is, or that you have no idea of how the nullification process works.

I'd really, truly like to have you explain how you reached your conclusion.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Perhaps my point wasn't as clear as it should have been.

There should be two possibilities. Either the person should be pardoned as a last resort because they were convicted of a bad law and went through a bad system that wasn't able to exonerate them, as in this case, or a person should NOT be pardoned because they are a bad person and actually deserves the punishment, regardless of what the governor or President gets from them.

By this person being pardoned, it should automatically cause a review (at the least) of every similar case, with pardons automatic for all similar convictions, and the precedent should stand against all future indictments.

I'm saying how it should be, not that I ignorantly think this is even remotely possible in today's legal system.

MAC702 said:

IMO, a pardon should be held as ipso facto nullification of the law. This is not only fair to all who have been or might later be affected by a bad law, but it will also raise the burden of responsibility of heads of state in regards to frivolous pardons of those guilty of malum en se laws.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I see the laws as black and white, while a pardon acknowledges that they technically broke the law but takes their circumstances into account in a way that black and white laws can't.

Aknazer said:

I disagree. I see the laws as black and white, while a pardon acknowledges that they technically broke the law but takes their circumstances into account in a way that black and white laws can't.

Click to expand...

This is a step that can also be taken by prosecutors and juries. I'd wager most pardons are purely political. This one was. Christie didn't give a crap about the victim.

Aknazer said:

I disagree. I see the laws as black and white, while a pardon acknowledges that they technically broke the law but takes their circumstances into account in a way that black and white laws can't.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In several statements over the last year and a half, Christie made note of his intent to allow the NJ justice system to pull their own heads out of their backsides, but that he'd be watching the situation closely.

New Jersey FAILED Lady Justice. Whether by bad law or a blind propensity to prosecute regardless of the facts, their actions were a travesty of justice.

I have no love for Christie, but he did the right thing, and sent a powerful message to both the legislators as well as the people of New Jersey that the current laws on the books are horrendous. Let's hope the response by the people and their elected state representatives does a better job of adhering to the U.S. Constitution than their current abysmal rhetoric.

NJ could simply not enforce laws that are anti-liberty, anti-citizen, anti-gun. Thus the question is moot...naw, what was I thinking, it is NJ after all.

gutshot said:

Does anybody here think this would have happened if the individual involved was a white male?

What about a white female with children?
What about a white female with no children?

Click to expand...

She's black? I thought she was purple. Who really cares. Why does race/color have to be brought into this?

One could argue that if she weren't purple she wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place. Wouldn't have been arrested. Wouldn't have been convicted of having broken a stupid law. And wouldn't have needed to be pardoned.

But really, who cares. I'm glad she was pardoned regardless of her sex, race, color, age, or sexual orientation.