Law Proposed in New Jersey: “Shaneen’s Law”

Assemblyman Ron Dancer of New Jersey has introduced “Shaneen’s Law,” legislation that would give judges the option of not sending citizens like Shaneen Allen to prison. Allen, if you recall, was the mother from Pennsylvania who had a Pennsylvania LTC, and didn’t know it was invalid in New Jersey until she was pulled over and told the officer she was armed. Atlantic County Prosecutor, James P. McClain, threw the book at her.

I’m glad to see someone at least trying to do something about this. Of course, I’d rather stop this with reciprocity, but that’s a long way off for the Garden State. Maybe Assemblyman Dancer’s bill has a chance to go somewhere.

I really want the anti-gunners to explain to me what public interest is served in sending Shaneen Allen to prison? She’s not a threat to anyone. There was never anyone that was victimized by her actions. What purpose does it serve to separate a mother from her child to house her in a prison at taxpayer expense? Is this the America you really want to live in? In an article that would make even the most “law and order” Republican cringe, anti-gun activist Bryan Miller has already answered that question. Sadly, I believe the answer is yes, because when she picked up the gun and put it in her purse, to those people, she became something less than a human being.

UPDATE: This post originally mentioned Shaneen Allen was persecuted by the Ocean County Prosecutor. Atlantic County is where she was persecuted. We apologize for the error.

36 thoughts on “Law Proposed in New Jersey: “Shaneen’s Law””

  1. She’s not a threat to anyone

    Don’t you see the news? She’s a threat to everyone!
    What if an attacker tries to kidnap her kid or tries to rape her?
    She’s likely to use that gun to defend herself and that would be WRONG in Utopia.

  2. Few people in the world draw my ire more than Brian Miller… His mix of religion and gun control just blows my mind. His lack of compassion is even worse.

    Random question: why are so many gun control groups “faith based”? It’s such a weird mix of liberal ideology and religion. Here in NJ, I’ve gone to many town meetings, and these jokers are always given the podium and respect by everyone because they’re a pastor, then they launch into an anti-gun tirade. Weird.

    1. Most of these bible believers that are anti gun are under a religious belief system not a faith belief system. They believe in making laws and creeds that are not really of faith nature. Christ tried to teach the religious Jews about this that they have to put on his mind and the law was only to show them what they could not accomplish. But they could accomplish the law through following Christ. There are alot of things that I stop doing by following christ and not trying to do it with my own effort. All we could do is pray and hope miracles happen for them to snap the heck out of it. God never said we could not defend ourselves. The examples are all over the bible.

  3. Because at the end of the day Due Process and fairness in the legal system are concepts that an increasing number of people view as roadblocks to achieving their political goals. Just look at two examples in the form of the Governor of Missouri calling for mob justice, or the campus sex assault bill in the Senate.

  4. I actually got into a calm discussion with an anti-gunner, and the result of that was for me to realize that his position was rational and logical, but was based upon a belief that I just cannot have. For that reason, our views are not and cannot ever find a compromise. That belief of his was:

    All human life has equal value. The rapist’s life is EXACTLY as valuable as the rape victim’s. Since they are equal, any use of deadly force by EITHER party is wrong. He claimed that from society’s viewpoint, a death is a death. No matter whether it is an armed robber or his intended victim who dies, it is still murder. For that reason, according to this anti-gunner, ALL weapons capable of inflicting death should be illegal.

    When I asked him if it was possible for a person to forfeit his life by attempting to take the life of someone else, he replied that killing is always wrong.

    He then quoted the Bible: “Thou shalt not kill,” and said that meant no killing at all, even in self defense.

    For those reasons, I cannot EVER agree with his position.

    1. This type of reasoning really bugs me. While I agree that each life is exactly as valuable as any other, we each also have a responsibility–one required of us by God–to protect our lives, and the lives of innocents; this means we should have the means to repel any attacker who unjustly tries to take an innocent life, or to cause serious bodily injury.

      While it’s true that the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill”, it also says “whosoever killeth shall die”. How is this killing supposed to occur, if it isn’t administered by human hands? The statement “Thou shalt not kill” is a mis-translation: in the days that the Bible was originally translated into English, “to kill” meant “to murder”, and “to slay” meant what we now mean “to kill”.

      Although, come to think about it, the anti-gunner’s position is probably not rational or logical, because typically the position always makes exceptions for cops and soldiers. Perhaps this anti-gunner was consistent, and would be willing to ban police officers and soldiers from having guns; in order to be completely consistent, though, that would bean that anything (!) that can inflict death cannot be illegal, because forcing others to obey such a law would be threatening them with the very murder you’re trying to prevent.

      1. I actually think it should be rephrased: “Thou shalt not intend to kill”.

        As a Catholic we are taught that life is sacred. Since life is sacred, however, you may use violence in defense of your life or another’s life against a violent aggressor. If the self defense act results in the death of the aggressor, it is not seen as immoral assuming there was no intent to cause death, but rather to stop the aggression.

        It is the same concept taught in (or should be taught in) every concealed carry class. You never shoot to kill. You never shoot to injure. You shoot to stop the threat, the result may be injury or even death, but that was not the intent.

        1. Of course I say all that and one of the hardest things to prove is intent….

          1. I was talking about that Commandment with a Jewish girl who grew up in NYC and frequently visits her Sabra Grandparents in Israel. Given her background she easily could quote the Commandments in Hebrew, and in fact it says “Tho Shall Not MURDER”, which is only one form of killing.

            Also the old testament is awash in Biblical heroes killing people in war, and sins listing death as the prescribed punishment.

            The translation and interpretation that the Bible claims that all killing is wrong is simply false and illogical.

            1. Jesus Christ once said, “He hath no sword should sell his garment and buy one”.

    2. divemedic: That is where the anti-gunner that you spoke with quoted WRONG. The Bible does NOT say “Thou shalt not KILL”, it says “Thou shalt not MURDER”. There’s a big difference, and I urge anyone who disputes my claim to do your own research on the matter like I did. Here’s a couple of Bible quotes for people who say we should NOT defend ourselves, or possess weapons: Psalm 18:34 “He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow (a weapon!) of bronze….
      Psalm 144:1 “Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight….
      I STRONGLY urge anyone doubting God’s intention of giving us the ability to possess weapons and the right to defend ourselves from others, to research the topic THOROUGHLY before coming to their own conclusions!

    3. And this person would not take a life to save many lives, including his or his family ?

    4. next time quote him Exodus 22: 2-3.

      If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

  5. I’m missing something because I don’t see how this law changes anything. The same prosecutor and the same judge let some sportsball player join a pre-trial intervention program in lieu of PMITA prison for beating his wife or gf in an elevator. Is the present judge not allowed to do the same with Shaneen, or is that only if the prosecution agrees?

    1. The judge has sentencing guidelines, which may or may not include mandatory minimums. I haven’t read the NJ law, but my guess is that from a judicial standpoint, she is probably facing a certain amount of jail time if she is convicted.

      I do believe there is still prosecutor discretion though – which this prosecutor lacks, probably for political reasons.

      Need to prove to a portion of your voter base that you are willing to keep those dirty gun-toting people from Pennsylvania out of your “Garden State”.

      1. Generally its not the judge’s call whether to do a diversion. Diversion is generally an agreement between the prosecutor’s office and a defendant to dismiss charges at the end of the diversionary period if the divertee does certain things (attends anger classes, etc.).

        That’s the prosecutor’s call, not a judge’s. The judge decides the matters before him, but charging or diversion decisions are not the judge’s they are the prosecutors. Especially if the statute includes a mandatory minimum sentence.

        Make no mistake about it: the single most powerful player in the criminal justice system is not at all the judge – it is the prosecutor. Prosecutors decide (without any significant checks upon their authority) what to charge, when to charge, whether or not to divert, and what penalties to seek. That is especially true in a guidelines state (like Kansas) or where the statute (like this one) has mandatory minimum penalties. If the prosecutor is a soulless, ideologically driven dick, like this one, well . . .

  6. For many churches actual faith in a supreme creator has been replaced with pursuing some kind of humanistic agenda. Which sounds good, but what if you choose the wrong agenda? I would never attend a church that took political stances even if they agreed with my views.

    Anyway — the beauty of this will be the optics if the anti-gun groups come out against it. “Moms for other moms to go to jail” etc.

  7. So an African-American mom was victimized by another state’s laws that treat her like a second-class citizen and Bryan Miller’s response is… “states’ rights?”

  8. How about if the decent Americans in the other 49 states band together and vote to expel New Jersey from the union? I for one am beyond ashamed to call them my countrymen…

    1. I left NJ because I was ashamed to be a citizen of that state.
      Garden State my ass, more like the Gestapo State!

    2. Not a fair comment, Kirk! Some of us PRO 2nd Amendment folks are STUCK in this shithole state due to reasons beyond our control. There are plenty of Pro gun rights people here, but unfortunately, there are more delusional commie libs than us!
      Zermoid: I hope to join you soon!

  9. …”reportedly charged in New Jersey with transporting and concealing a handgun loaded with armor-piercing bullets — three transgressions of long-standing state law.”

    When can we get away from laws created by hysteria from a bad Mel Gibson movie? Armor piercing?


    1. More likely she had hollow-points–the opposite of “armor piercing.” Hollow-point rounds are illegal in New Jersey. Because that makes any sense.

      1. Hollow-point rounds are just about as illegal as handguns in NJ (except for the one corner-case that got Brian Aitken – you can transport handguns between residences, but no such exemption apparently exists for hollow-point ammo). IE, only technically.

        Because it was the only ammo available at the time I wanted to purchase, I have around a thousand .22lr hollowpoints in my ammo storage right now; purchasing it was exactly the same as buying ball ammo, and the only thing I had to worry about was that I drove directly home or to the range rather than screw around en route. Likewise I’ve got several magazines worth of 9mm hollowpoint squirreled away (those were bought deliberately); and as long as the only time they leave my house is to/from the range, I’m perfectly fine.

        Im sure if she had hollow-points they charged her with possession of those, but they also charged her with possession of the pistol as well, after all

  10. Classic false equivalency straw man argument as many pointed out. In fact two. All killing is clearly not the same. And the value of life is not the same as life itself. I am sure this person would sing a different tune in an actual life and death situation. Smack my head.

  11. The reality of this situation is this.
    The 2nd amendment clearly states “Shall Not Be Infringed”. This means no law can be legislated that would prohibit or slow down the process of obtaining, owning and carrying a fire arm. The state would like to claim it has this power under the 10th amendment. A power in which they fail to practice in many other instances, where they do in fact hold this power.
    The 2nd amendment as part of the Bill Of Rights, it is not a right given by man but in fact a right recognized by man given by God. It is Natural Law not a man made law.

    The 10TH Amendment does not apply here, where the state can assume it has the power to over ride the 2nd amendment or any other amendment. That is the moral stop gap on this issue.
    The legal “constitutional” issue comes in the “Supremacy” clause of our constitution. This means no law by States can over ride that which is in the constitution.
    There is only one way constitutionally speaking that there can be legislation enacted by the state or the federal government on this issue is a constitutional amendment.

  12. This might be the exception that proves the rule of “laws named after someone are always bad laws”.

    This one can only be considered “bad” in that it’s a half-measure (discretion rather than simply removing the ban or at least allowing for reciprocity and requiring a “leave now” or “we’ll let you have it back on your way out, here’s a receipt“, rather than arrest).

  13. For anyone interested in the laughable “study” cited by Mr. Miller, here are free links to both it and a brief but thorough rebuttal:
    Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
    Flaws In Study Of Firearm Possession And Risk For Assault
    Spoiler: Not only is it fatally flawed, the study has nothing whatsoever to do with legal Concealed Carry.

Comments are closed.