Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Soldier arrested in NY: Charged With 5 Felonies For Possession of AR Magazines

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Newport News, VA
    Posts
    72

    Decorated Vet arrested in NY: Charged With 5 Felonies For Possession of AR Magazines

    Last edited by bullseye; 01-31-2013 at 10:55 PM. Reason: edit title
    "Rule 1: All Guns Are Always Loaded" - Jeff Cooper
    On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs - by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    So after reading up on this, and the comments about the law, it seems that every citizen of New York will be a criminal if they don't sell these Normal capacity magazines out of state before 2014. ( or convert )

    They are going to have to arrest an awful lot of New York citizens to make this work.

    Looks like he is the first. Maybe not a smart move to start with a decorated US Soldier. How is this going to make our kids safer again?
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGutshotWilly View Post
    So after reading up on this, and the comments about the law, it seems that every citizen of New York will be a criminal if they don't sell these Normal capacity magazines out of state before 2014. ....
    This ^ may not be the issue. 30-round mags manufactured after 1994 are banned in NYS. Haddad is claiming he believed the magazines in question were pre-ban and therefore legal till 1/15/2014 Cop who saw them claims they are post-ban and were illegal since xx/xx/1994 when the NYS AWB went into effect.

    Depending on what brand they are and if they are marked with the fairly standard AWB-period "LEO ONLY" notice or not, it's going to be difficult to prove when they were manufactured. Some folks in states with AWB laws retain sales receipts with contact info of the seller as well as an affidavit from the seller that the mags are pre-ban or post-ban (if AWB laws went away).

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    besides the obvious, this part alone annoys the snot out of me:
    "when he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check"

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Airframer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    besides the obvious, this part alone annoys the snot out of me:
    "when he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check"
    +1

    Could it be possible that one of our defenders of freedom has a Fourth Amendment defense?

    I'm so glad to not live in NY or ever have ANY reason for ever going. The Statue of Liberty should be relocated to a state that doesn't oppose liberty.
    It's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This ^ may not be the issue. 30-round mags manufactured after 1994 are banned in NYS. Haddad is claiming he believed the magazines in question were pre-ban and therefore legal till 1/15/2014 Cop who saw them claims they are post-ban and were illegal since xx/xx/1994 when the NYS AWB went into effect.
    stay safe.
    The charges would be the subject matter of a motion to dismiss. So its possible that the facts of the case would never be heard at all.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The charges would may be the subject matter of a motion to dismiss. So its possible that the facts of the case would might never be heard at all.
    FIFY.

    Too much "not enough information" to say for sure if the stop itself was unconstitutional, and even if it was his defense stragety may be to ignore seeking to suppress evidence obtained unconsitutionally in favor of actually getting a "Not Guilty" verdict.

    Chickens. Eggs. Hatching. Counting. Remember that?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    FIFY.

    Too much "not enough information" to say for sure if the stop itself was unconstitutional, and even if it was his defense stragety may be to ignore seeking to suppress evidence obtained unconsitutionally in favor of actually getting a "Not Guilty" verdict.

    Chickens. Eggs. Hatching. Counting. Remember that?

    stay safe.
    A bad stop would be addressed by a motion to suppress. A motion to dismiss has priority...it would be filed first and it stays any further proceedings until its ruled upon.

    Of course, his lawyer is free not to file a motion to dismiss..but he would have to be the worst lawyer in the nation not to


    Motion to dismiss to argue that the mag limit is unconstitutional -- just to clarify...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-01-2013 at 01:36 PM. Reason: clarify

  9. #9
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by The Airframer View Post
    +1

    Could it be possible that one of our defenders of freedom has a Fourth Amendment defense?

    I'm so glad to not live in NY or ever have ANY reason for ever going. The Statue of Liberty should be relocated to a state that doesn't oppose liberty.
    Probably not. Most likely he consented (or didn't dissent).
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by The Airframer View Post
    +1

    Could it be possible that one of our defenders of freedom has a Fourth Amendment defense?

    I'm so glad to not live in NY or ever have ANY reason for ever going. The Statue of Liberty should be relocated to a state that doesn't oppose liberty.
    There are a number of states i will drive all the way around and refuse to put any $$ into their state by spending money there. Also not worth the risk.
    Last edited by zack991; 02-01-2013 at 07:12 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    There are a number of states i will drive all the way around and refuse to put any $$ into their state by spending money there. Also not worth the risk.
    You need to read the US Code ... I think they exempt folks from just traveling through w/guns ..

    Now if you don't want to spend $$ that another issue ... but I don't buy in states I don't like unless I have to

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You need to read the US Code ... I think they exempt folks from just traveling through w/guns ..

    Now if you don't want to spend $$ that another issue ... but I don't buy in states I don't like unless I have to
    That is the interstate commerce clause intent. To protect travelers.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    I can remember quite a few story's of gun owners just passing through a state get screwed by the Governments with stupid gun laws.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    I keep hearing stories of gun owners with properly packaged and declared guns in their baggage, who are arrested at the New York airports, guns forfeited, and then charged with a lesser crime.

    I wish I had the cites available, but it seems that has been a practice of Mayor Bloomberg and New York City.

    If others have the cites of those incidents, I would be interested in re-visiting them.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You need to read the US Code ... I think they exempt folks from just traveling through w/guns .. ...
    Can you cite the relevant portion of the code? I don't think it says what you are implying it says. There are very specific rules under which one may travel interstate from one place where they may possess a firearm to another place where they may possess a firearm. If you are going to reference those rules, cite them!

    A little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing, which is one of the reasons that this site requires that we cite to authority in matters of law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Can you cite the relevant portion of the code? I don't think it says what you are implying it says. There are very specific rules under which one may travel interstate from one place where they may possess a firearm to another place where they may possess a firearm. If you are going to reference those rules, cite them!

    A little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing, which is one of the reasons that this site requires that we cite to authority in matters of law.
    http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...portation.aspx

    Travelers should be aware that some state and local governments treat this federal provision as an “affirmative defense” that may only be raised after an arrest.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926A

    18 USC § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGutshotWilly View Post
    I keep hearing stories of gun owners with properly packaged and declared guns in their baggage, who are arrested at the New York airports, guns forfeited, and then charged with a lesser crime.

    I wish I had the cites available, but it seems that has been a practice of Mayor Bloomberg and New York City.

    If others have the cites of those incidents, I would be interested in re-visiting them.
    The law that covers air travel covers the air travel only, not what happens before you go through the process of checking your bags or after you pick them up. Those times are under the jurisdiction of the States and localities you are in at the time.

    Notice how these rules cover only firearms in checked baggage. They do not cover how to get them to the point where they are checked baggage!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Please note that I was challenging a very specific poster to support his very specific contention by citing the law, the actual US Code sections.

    He has a habit of abstracting one small idea from a very complex law, and making it sound like the be all and end all of the law. In this case, he is implying that this federal law protects all travel with firearms (and, in the case of this thread, magazines). It doesn't. He needs to know that.

    More importantly, those who read his posts need to know that he is playing fast and loose with the law. Listening to him is playing fast and loose with one's freedom and with one's LIFE!

  19. #19
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The law that covers air travel covers the air travel only, not what happens before you go through the process of checking your bags or after you pick them up. Those times are under the jurisdiction of the States and localities you are in at the time.

    Notice how these rules cover only firearms in checked baggage. They do not cover how to get them to the point where they are checked baggage!
    They need to be legal in both jurisdictions. I suppose someone without a concealed permit in a jurisdiction that requires it could be arrested once they claim their baggage.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    They need to be legal in both jurisdictions. I suppose someone without a concealed permit in a jurisdiction that requires it could be arrested once they claim their baggage.


    FYI

    18 USC § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post


    FYI

    18 USC § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

    I already quoted that law. Notice the part I bolded in your quote, this does not cover a firearm in your luggage. It is specific to a vehicle and poorly worded.

    ETA .. Visualize what I said above. You're at the airport. Your luggage comes down the conveyor. You grab you luggage with a handgun inside. You are in a location that requires a concealed permit and you don't have one. You walk outside (maybe the location forbids airport carry.) You are on the sidewalk and remove your firearm to OC. You are arrested for having had a concealed weapon. Maybe you don't remove your weapon from your luggage but a TSA agent tips off an overbearing cop who's itching for an easy arrest on a technicality.

    Why do I have to spell everything out in such detail?

    ETA2 This is totally hypothetical. Cops don't act like that in places I travel with a gun, In the places they do where I travel, (like NJ) I don't bring my firearm.
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-02-2013 at 12:49 AM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I already quoted that law. Notice the part I bolded in your quote, this does not cover a firearm in your luggage. It is specific to a vehicle and poorly worded.

    ETA .. Visualize what I said above. You're at the airport. Your luggage comes down the conveyor. You grab you luggage with a handgun inside. You are in a location that requires a concealed permit and you don't have one. You walk outside (maybe the location forbids airport carry.) You are on the sidewalk and remove your firearm to OC. You are arrested for having had a concealed weapon. Maybe you don't remove your weapon from your luggage but a TSA agent tips off an overbearing cop who's itching for an easy arrest on a technicality.

    Why do I have to spell everything out in such detail?

    ETA2 This is totally hypothetical. Cops don't act like that in places I travel with a gun, In the places they do where I travel, (like NJ) I don't bring my firearm.
    Uhhhh..all I did was post the USC .... most cities exempt the airport .... 'cause of just the reason you mention ...

  23. #23
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Uhhhh..all I did was post the USC .... most cities exempt the airport .... 'cause of just the reason you mention ...
    You posted the USC in direct response to my hypothetical about flying with a gun. FOPA (18 USC § 926A) is not relevant at all to that. Try reading the law.

    God, you're putting me in collusion with eye and I don't appreciate that.

    Cite any city that exempts the airport because of that. To be valid the rules for the airport must be more lenient than outside of the airport.
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-02-2013 at 02:56 AM. Reason: spelling
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  24. #24
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    This is good information on the shitstorm of AIR travel with firearms. I never even thought about the hop state.

    For example, when I fly to Jersey I land in PA and drive from there. Maybe if I actually carried in Jersey I would have thought to factor Philly's laws in.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ad-this-first/

    P.S. I'm not even sure this thread has anything to do with interstate travel. The OP links don't say anything about interstate travel.

    ETA. That article is eye opening. Im still reading it. I usually fly non stop but never considered if my plane had to make a diversion. What if I landed in a non gun friendly state and do to changes in flights had to claim my luggage in evil state.

    There have been situations where passengers have been stranded with their guns in an antigun jurisdiction and were in violation of local laws the minute they took their guns off the baggage carousel. In the Revell case, the Third Circuit offered helpful advice for those travelers. It said:

    Section 926 clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation. Stranded gun owners like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of Section 926 and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun regulations.
    Personally, I would not go to law enforcement authorities. I would go to the airline that dumped me in the midst of heater-hating heathens and I’d make them take control of my guns until I could be on my way again.
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-02-2013 at 03:17 AM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post


    FYI

    18 USC § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
    OK, we are citing actual law now. That is an improvement. Now, please notice a few things: First, this section discusses interstate transportation. Second, you will notice that it mentions only transportation in a vehicle. Third, notice that it only covers transportation from one place where possession is lawful to another such place. If you make a stop somewhere where you may not possess it, such as at your mother's house in New Jersey, this federal law will provide zero protection from onerous State laws. Bear these in mind when you suggest actions by others.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •