The "Safe Act" strikes: NY man charged for having 9 Bullets in Gun

[amathis]

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-releas...ving-9-bullets

A man from Dutchess, NY was pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He was found with his legally registered weapon, the only problem being it had 9 rounds in it instead of the arbitrary 7.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is no "Duty to Inform" in NY law.

This happened just north of NY City, one of the few areas of NY where the magazine limit would be enforced.

[amathis]

Forgive me for not knowing the law. Editing.

[Tom Servo]

Police charged Dean with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation and other vehicle infractions.

I'm a bit confused by the "unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices" charge. Either the device is illegal or it's not. A charge for "loading a feeding device above lawful limits" might make more sense.

In any case, it looks like there are other factors in the arrest, and the magazine charge was just tacked on.

[Double Naught Spy]

https://www.nyspnews.com/article_dis...ticle_id=30582
Yep, lamp out, driving on a suspended license, didn't keep gun fully concealed such that it was spotted, and too much ammo in gun.

He certainly could have been arrested anyway on aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree anyway, LOL. So blaming his arrest just on the Safe Act is pretty silly. The combination of factors certainly sealed it for him.

Also see...http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blo...d-operati.html

[amathis]

Perhaps I should have clarified. "NY man charged for having 9 bullets in gun."

The guy had the arrest coming, but note, they will treat him as a poster child for this legislation.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'd tend to think that this was an instance wherein the officers decided to "throw the book at him". It doesn't sound like he's a poster child for RKBA arms.

[Tom Servo]

The guy had the arrest coming, but note, they will treat him as a poster child for this legislation.

I doubt this'll get much traction in the mainstream media. Had he committed a serious crime, perhaps.

That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs. I'd really not like to see us go back to that.

[Double Naught Spy]

amathis, in your defense, lots of news outlets, blogs, and forums have posted exactly what you posted (or at least pretty close), giving the indication that this guy did nothing else wrong and was somehow targeted or unjustly treated by the cops by enforcing the law.

Your source, Greg Ball's site, conveniently left out relevant information by deceptively classifying the AUO 3rd simply as "other vehicle infractions." The lamp being out is a vehicle infraction. Driving without a license is NOT a vehicle infraction. It is a driver infraction and an arrestable offense.

In short, you were duped by someone with an agenda. I don't like the law either, but the misrepresentation by somebody who should know better, a lawmaker, for crying out loud, isn't something that can be excused under the guise that he could not have known. He knows the difference between vehicle infractions and driver infractions but decided not to include that information.

There is a reason why politically motivated blogs should not be considered primary sources.

[myusername]

And just who exactly is liable when someone with only 7 rounds is attacked by multiple assailants or a hopped up druggie and runs out of bullets and subsequently dies as a result?

This is the problem with these stupid laws. I cannot understand why the idiots voted into office think by keeping law abiding people from protecting themselves, that somehow we will all be protected.

BTW - this guy that was arrested was apparently NOT a law abiding citizen. If had be abiding by the laws he probably wouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

[amathis]

I doubt this'll get much traction in the mainstream media. Had he committed a serious crime, perhaps.

That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs. I'd really not like to see us go back to that.

I suspect they will raise him up as an example: "See this bad man driving without a license! Gun owners aren't law abiding citizens. . . . ."

[Ruthless4christ]

I'd tend to think that this was an instance wherein the officers decided to "throw the book at him". It doesn't sound like he's a poster child for RKBA arms.

Although technically true, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we are talking about 2A rights, this fellow may be just as much a poster child for the cause as a jew arrested in WWII Germany, after being pulled over for a suspended license. *assuming they had them) you get my drift.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Ruthless4christ

Although technically true, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we are talking about 2A rights, this fellow may be just as much a poster child for the cause as a jew arrested in WWII Germany, after being pulled over for a suspended license. *assuming they had them) you get my drift.

I don't get your drift at all. What correlation are you attempting to create?

[Double Naught Spy]

Aguila, he is invoking Godwin's Law. It is a feeble reductionist argument to compare situations to Nazism, Hitler, or their travesties in order to make their argument sound more significant. Basically, he is saying we are like the Jews of the period and New York government is like that of Hitler's regime.

[terzmo]

so much for the thought the law will not be enforced, as spoken by so many LEO's

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by myusername

BTW - this guy that was arrested was apparently NOT a law abiding citizen. If had be abiding by the laws he probably wouldn't have been stopped in the first place.

You gotta be kidding me. He was stopped for having a light over his license plate out. That was what triggered the traffic stop in the first place. Did he violate other laws? Certainly, but none that would have caused a traffic stop. I can understand him being arrested for driving on a suspended license. The extra 2 rounds in his mag is a stupid law that should have never been passed. If he knew about that law however, he should have followed it. I would just carry a few mags with 7 rounds in it.

[Ruthless4christ]

Aguila, he is invoking Godwin's Law. It is a feeble reductionist argument to compare situations to Nazism, Hitler, or their travesties in order to make their argument sound more significant. Basically, he is saying we are like the Jews of the period and New York government is like that of Hitler's regime.

I'm so sorry I have seen the light. How foolish of me to think that criminals no longer have any civil rights. By all means anytime someone is a victim of an unjust law or unjust treatment at all lets criminalize him for any other infractions relating to other portions of the law by which he may be guilty, and ignore any legitimate claims he has in regards to other abuses.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Lets keep it on topic, guys. Nazis aren't it.

[Ruthless4christ]

at least that will teach him to not drive around with an "an inadequate license plate light"

[Brian Pfleuger]

Lets not overlook criminal behavior in the zeal of our hatred of the SAFE Act.

Inadequate license plate lights. It IS a law and the police DO routinely make traffic stops on its basis.

It's a legitimate stop, which brings to light a host of additional CRIMES. This isn't even about the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act charge is nothing more than a place holder. People like this are routinely charged with everything the officers can find because they know most of the charges will be dropped or pled down.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'm a bit confused by the "unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices" charge. Either the device is illegal or it's not. A charge for "loading a feeding device above lawful limits" might make more sense.

Although I agree that it sounds odd, if one examines the wording of the law, IMHO the charge is technically correct. From the definitions...

"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition...

(emphasis mine)

IOW the mere fact that a magazine contains more than 7rds makes it a LCAFD. It's goofy.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs.

Just as a footnote, the U.S. v. Miller case was arguably a textbook example of this.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Ruthless4christ

But the idea that since he is a criminal we should not care if he was charged with having over 7 rounds in his mag is to me outlandish.

The law sucks but it is currently the law. Some folks like the law. A lot don't. It isn't the least bit surprising that he'd be charged under it, particularly when there are other conditions present.

He was charge with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree. That specific section indicates that he was driving "while knowing or having reason to know that such person's license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner."

Licenses don't get suspended willy-nilly, without cause and without notification. He has obviously had trouble in the past and was intentionally driving illegally.

I'd bet that this is a "throw the book at him" case. Either his actions or previous record caused the cops to nail him with everything they could find. SAFE Act is coincidental, not causal.

[Evan Thomas]

R4C is correct that the law shouldn't be selectively enforced. In this case, it might have been difficult to ignore additional violations once they found he was driving without a license.

This is why it makes me uneasy when LEO's try to make political points by saying they won't enforce a law they don't like. It makes it tempting for people to say, "Oh well, they won't enforce it against us, so why should we fight it?" We then have to justify selective enforcement by saying that someone like Mr. Dean didn't "deserve" to be let off the hook, as some in this thread have done.

Both we and the other side are always looking for "poster children" to exemplify our arguments. Mr. Dean isn't much of a poster child for us -- but he isn't much of one for anti-gun folks, either. They're going to say what? "Here's why we need these strict gun laws, to keep us safe from dangerous maniacs who drive with suspended licenses!"

I don't think so. He's just some guy. And he did have a permit for the gun, so his record can't have been all that bad...

[Double Naught Spy]

...unit now with a weapons violation.

I wonder if New York will keep his permit active with this incident or not.

[Oldwoodsloafer]

One other factor seems to be at work here. He was stopped by a "Trooper". The New York State Police work for our hero governor Andy and have probably been told to toe the line on the SAFE Act. The fact that many other law enforcement agencies have chosen to be "selective" in enforcement isn't a factor here.