Decorated Veteran Arrested in New York - Charged with 5 Felony Counts

[oleheat]

Why harass the Sheriff's office? They don't make the laws. He broke laws, and was charged for it. I respect his veteran status and service to his country, but justice is and should be blind.

You're right. Why should anyone have that right?

You know, I didn't check; it may already be illegal to criticize public officials in New York, anyway.

 

[SpeedRacer]

You're right. Why should anyone have that right?

You know, I didn't check; it may already be illegal to criticize public officials in New York, anyway.

I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't, I asked why. It's wasted energy IMO.

 

[doc ace]

From what I understand his arrest has nothing to do with the new law. If his mags were made after 1994, they've already been illegal for 12 years. Without knowing more details about the mags it's hard to say. It is strange that he theoretically bought these magazines 12 years ago but had them in his vehicle?

Just my interpretation, I'm not an expert on NY laws.

When I was issued my mags, upon ETSing and asking my squad leader, "hey man I've got about 35 thirty rounders, what do I do with them?" He then replied, "Turn in the 7 you were originally issued into Supply and the rest are yours."

Mind you I had a slew of LEO/Military only, some brand new in wrappers without the ban stamp, and some beat to crap where it wasn't even readable. In they went into my Uhaul en route back to Louisiana via Ft Stewart GA.

You're saying had I been stationed in Ft. Drum, and gotten pulled over on some New York highway and searched, that this would be okay, and I should be arrested and indicted on 28 felony counts?

I'd like to see the report as to why he was originally pulled over, most of us never changed our license plates to GA. Was he still on terminal leave? If so, then he is still on Active Duty and well within reason to legally possess a 30 rd mag as he had not separated from Active Duty service yet (IMHO).

 

[oleheat]

I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't, I asked why. It's wasted energy IMO.

Because it's my energy and opinion?

Hell- we could make the same arguement that asking why I did it twice is wasting energy, too. (and those that know me would agree.)





Sh*t. I'm doing it again.

 

[SpeedRacer]

When I was issued my mags, upon ETSing and asking my squad leader, "hey man I've got about 35 thirty rounders, what do I do with them?" He then replied, "Turn in the 7 you were originally issued into Supply and the rest are yours."

Mind you I had a slew of LEO/Military only, some brand new in wrappers without the ban stamp, and some beat to crap where it wasn't even readable. In they went into my Uhaul en route back to Louisiana via Ft Stewart GA.

You're saying had I been stationed in Ft. Drum, and gotten pulled over on some New York highway and searched, that this would be okay, and I should be arrested and indicted on 28 felony counts?

I'd like to see the report as to why he was originally pulled over, most of us never changed our license plates to GA. Was he still on terminal leave? If so, then he is still on Active Duty and well within reason to legally possess a 30 rd mag as he had not separated from Active Duty service yet (IMHO).

I'm saying I don't know. We don't know the details on the mags, so it's hard to form opinion. They could've been PMags for all we know.

I'm saying it struck ME as bizarre that he would have these 12 year old mags just hanging out in his car for no apparent reason. I'm not jumping to conclusions, just assuming that there's more to the story.

 

[Jack]

I'm pretty sure it is legal to transport mags through there, with no unneccissary stops.

 

[Leonidas]

This may shed some light on the issue.


From Wikipedia On the '94 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

"The state of New York's version of the law is very similar to the Federal version, but New York's version does not have a sunset provision. According to the laws of the State of New York, a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds manufactured after September 14, 1994 cannot be legally possessed by anyone other than a law enforcement officer. A provision of the Federal law required that gun makers stamp the date of manufacture on every newly manufactured 'large capacity' magazine. Because that requirement is no longer in effect, the New York magazine ban becomes potentially unenforceable, except with respect to those magazines manufactured during the ban and marked according to federal regulations then in effect."

I'm guessing that the mags were date stamped.

 

[doc ace]

I'm pretty sure it is legal to transport mags through there, with no unneccissary stops.

The unnecessary trip would be dumping the mags in the dumpster for some felon to acquire. oh the world we live in...

 

[doc ace]

This may shed some light on the issue.


From Wikipedia On the '94 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

"The state of New York's version of the law is very similar to the Federal version, but New York's version does not have a sunset provision. According to the laws of the State of New York, a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds manufactured after September 14, 1994 cannot be legally possessed by anyone other than a law enforcement officer. A provision of the Federal law required that gun makers stamp the date of manufacture on every newly manufactured 'large capacity' magazine. Because that requirement is no longer in effect, the New York magazine ban becomes potentially unenforceable, except with respect to those magazines manufactured during the ban and marked according to federal regulations then in effect."

I'm guessing that the mags were date stamped.

Odd. None of my USGIs have dates. Some say LEO/Military Only, some don't. All have green followers. I doubt highly that every mag on a specific base has remained specifically at that base and originated there, so you've got to be getting mags from Ft. Orr, Ft. Drum, Carson, etc.

 

[Emperor]

Seems a little crazy premature to have a fund set up for a legal defense when there doesn't seem to be enough details about this issue in the onset.

How come no one can find this story?

 

[kellierenae7110]

yes it would be different. It's not a constitutional right to distribute/manufacture/possess drugs. It's a constitutional right to bear arms. Therefore, the law is unjust and unconstitutional. Very BIG difference. LE should enfore laws that are constitutional.

 

[kellierenae7110]

I don't agree with the law at all. I'm saying aim your anger at people that make the laws.

And where do you draw the line? Should LE only enforce laws YOU agree with? What about people that don't like drug laws, etc? If the guy had a bag of heroin instead of illegal mags would that be any different?

Yes, it would be different. It's not a Constitutional right to distribute/manufacture/possess drugs. It's a Constitutional right to bear arms. Therefore, the law is unjust and unconstitutional. Very BIG difference. LEO's should enfore laws that are constitutional. Yes, your anger should be directed toward those who make the laws because they are the one trampling your rights, BUT your anger would not be displaced by aiming it at those who swore to uphold the constitution, and didn't.

 

[oleheat]

LE should enforce laws that are constitutional.

Isn't it sad that in today's America some local law enforcement officials around the nation are even having to SAY THAT PUBLICALLY??

 

[Emperor]

Yes, it would be different. It's not a Constitutional right to distribute/manufacture/possess drugs. It's a Constitutional right to bear arms. Therefore, the law is unjust and unconstitutional. Very BIG difference. LEO's should enfore laws that are constitutional. Yes, your anger should be directed toward those who make the laws because they are the one trampling your rights, BUT your anger would not be displaced by aiming it at those who swore to uphold the constitution, and didn't.

You might want to provide the verbiage in the actual "Oath" of duty this particular LEO took. Might not say anything about Constitutionality.

 

[X Zombie]

I might have overlooked it, but how did he get caught? Was he frisked after seen with a Big Gulp from the 7/11? (Nevermind - Just brought up to speed)

P.S. My girlfriend is from New York and she gets mad at me when I say I will never live there.

 

[Speedlace]

yes it would be different. It's not a constitutional right to distribute/manufacture/possess drugs. It's a constitutional right to bear arms. Therefore, the law is unjust and unconstitutional. Very BIG difference. LE should enfore laws that are constitutional.

But that right is not unlimited (District of Columbia v. Heller) and can be subject to restrictions.

 

[IfItFliesItDies]

The article says he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check.

It might get thrown out on that alone. That doesn't sound like probable cause.

 

[SpeedRacer]

The article says he was randomly pulled over for a vehicle check.

It might get thrown out on that alone. That doesn't sound like probable cause.

Well, that's one side of the story anyway.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

But that right is not unlimited (District of Columbia v. Heller) and can be subject to restrictions.

You (and they) need to reread the last words of the 2nd amendment.

 

[BIGGREEN]

What's really funny to me is that a "Lawmaker" from New York was being interviewed by Sean Hannity and he said that High Capacity "Clips" were not illegal unless they were loaded with more than 7 bullets. He repeated himself to this effect at least 4 times that I recall. So, it goes to show you that even the guys who write the laws don't even understand them.