US Army Veteran Arrested in New York for possession of AR15 Magazines


PDA






Justin
February 1, 2013, 10:11 AM
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130107/NEWS07/701079944

Injured veteran arrested in weapons investigation
By DAVID C. SHAMPINE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013
ARTICLE OPTIONS
A A
print this article
e-mail this article

A former Fort Drum soldier who was injured in special forces training was arrested Sunday night when he was found with prohibited rounds of ammunition, the Jefferson County Sheriff

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army Veteran Arrested in New York for possession of AR15 Magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jamesbeat
February 1, 2013, 10:17 AM
That doesn't explain what exactly he was arrested for.

I don't think that the law banning all >10 round magazines has taken effect yet has it?

Pre-ban magazines were grandfathered in but will soon be illegal under the new law. Did he maybe have already-illegal post-ban magazines?

It's also possible that he had legal pre-ban magazines but they arrested him anyway...

OpelBlitz
February 1, 2013, 10:17 AM
That's sad. :(

clamman
February 1, 2013, 10:22 AM
Did you read the comment?

greenmtnguy
February 1, 2013, 10:29 AM
I also thought that they had until next year to sell out or dispose of those >10 round magazines. And, he didn't even have any ammunition according to the comment? Only empty mags? It is time to turn NYC into the 51 state and let them do whatever they want there and the rest of New York can come back to the land of reality.

fanchisimo
February 1, 2013, 10:31 AM
I would think if he could get the financial support to fight this, in time this could lead to a supreme court ruling on magazine capacity. It is gonna happen, if we could head off all these magazine bans floating around, that'd save some time. The fact that they were empty and no other gun was present seems to invalidate the felony possession of a weapon. However, you can be arrested just for having the pieces of metal to make a lightning link because those pieces are considered a machine gun.

zxcvbob
February 1, 2013, 10:35 AM
The police who arrested his were probably in violation of the new law at the time too.

Sav .250
February 1, 2013, 10:38 AM
What he was or wasn`t has nothing to do with the reported charges.

taliv
February 1, 2013, 10:41 AM
i haven't seen the law, but what i read was that you have a year to get rid of them, but as of the signing of the law you are only allowed to put 7 rounds in the mag. so if he had a 10 round mag and put 8 rounds in it he would be in violation.

i could be completely mistaken on this

jamesbeat
February 1, 2013, 10:43 AM
This was probably a case of (currently) legal pre-ban mags + police not knowing the laws that they are enforcing.
How much do they pay out for wrongful arrest these days?

06
February 1, 2013, 10:44 AM
Like what Hank Williams Jr said in his old song---"send me to h--- or NY city, it is all the same to me". Made a vow never to return there myself. Our church is active in the Sou. Baptist Disaster Relief Teams and I was asked several times if I was going up. Was going till the unions barred the Georgia Power company from helping them--after they had driven up there. There are just more needs elsewhere that we can go to instead of there. NY is a different place with a different agenda.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:50 AM
The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 10:52 AM
The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.
Well, timmy, you reap what you sow.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:58 AM
Well, timmy, you reap what you sow.
Do I? Well, perhaps.

But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in. Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

Solo
February 1, 2013, 11:03 AM
Was it the ACLU's fault that we got the PATRIOT Act because they refused to compromise on our rights to privacy, a speedy trial, and trail by jury?

jamesbeat
February 1, 2013, 11:07 AM
Timmy, I do see your point in a way, but there's a big problem with a moderate stance on gun laws; there isn't one.
This was referred to in another post here, but I'll point you in the direction so you can read further. Look up 'slippery slope' on wikipedia and scroll down to the part showing Eugene Volokh's Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope.

This guy wasn't doing any harm. If ever there was a victimless crime, this is it.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:08 AM
Was it the ACLU's fault that we got the PATRIOT Act because they refused to compromise on our rights to privacy, a speedy trial, and trail by jury?
No, but not quite an accurate analogy. The ACLU is a loud organization, but they hardly represent millions of people with a single pluralistic goal in mind. I believe the NRA could have compromised on any number of specific issues without compromising their core convictions, and many of these stupid laws could have been prevented.

mcdonl
February 1, 2013, 11:10 AM
Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

Nor will that change. I wanted to try the middle of the road approach. Was actually told by one of my states Senators to either work with SAM (Sportsman Alliance of Maine) or the Maine Handgun Violence Coalition. The far right and far left of the issue.

Needless to say the SAM will be coming to our next gun club meeting and I am taking an active role to stop any and all bans of anykind. No one in the middle is being heard. Pick a side and fight.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:12 AM
Timmy, I do see your point in a way, but there's a big problem with a moderate stance on gun laws; there isn't one.
This was referred to in another post here, but I'll point you in the direction so you can read further. Look up 'slippery slope' on wikipedia and scroll down to the part showing Eugene Volokh's Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope.

This guy wasn't doing any harm. If ever there was a victimless crime, this is it.
I agree about the victimless crime part. Based on what we know, this guy should NOT have been arrested.

As to the slippery slope argument, I don't buy it. Every proposed law in this country, regardless of the issues involved, should be considered on it's own individual merits, and not as part of some trend one way or the other. If a law makes sense, we should pass it, and if it doesn't make sense, we should not.

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
Do I? Well, perhaps.

But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in. Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.
There is no middle ground on a constitutionally granted right. You either have it or you don't. They've been taking your proposed "middle ground" for almost a century now, and these 2nd Amendment infractions are becoming more and more frequent. By believing there is still a middle ground shows how little you have been paying attention. The fictitious middle ground is just another device used to bring us closer and closer to the end of 2nd Amendment.

Bianchi?
February 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
Here's the way it breaks down:

Before January 2013, the law allowed for possession of 30 round magazines provided they were manufactured before 1994. It was basically the same as the national AWB.

Under the SAFE Act that was just passed, any magazine capacity over 10 rounds is illegal. Period. Owners of standard capacity magazines have 1 year to get rid of them.

So the question is: Did the accused posses magazines that were manufactured before 1993?

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:15 AM
Nor will that change. I wanted to try the middle of the road approach. Was actually told by one of my states Senators to either work with SAM (Sportsman Alliance of Maine) or the Maine Handgun Violence Coalition. The far right and far left of the issue.

Needless to say the SAM will be coming to our next gun club meeting and I am taking an active role to stop any and all bans of anykind. No one in the middle is being heard. Pick a side and fight.
Just because you were told that by a state senator doesn't mean you have to listen to him. Use your own judgment. If something makes sense to you, or doesn't make sense, then point it out.

My own views tend to be unpopular both among most gun supporters, and most gun control people. Oh well. Better to be unpopular than to be dishonest with yourself.

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:16 AM
Here's the way it breaks down:

Before January 2013, the law allowed for possession of 30 round magazines provided they were manufactured before 1994. It was basically the same as the national AWB.

Under the SAFE Act that was just passed, any magazine capacity over 10 rounds is illegal. Period. Owners of standard capacity magazines have 1 year to get rid of them.

So the question is: Did the accused posses magazines that were manufactured before 1993?
Probably not. Wow, what a confusing mess of laws.

mljdeckard
February 1, 2013, 11:17 AM
So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....

Solo
February 1, 2013, 11:17 AM
No, but not quite an accurate analogy. The ACLU is a loud organization, but they hardly represent millions of people with a single pluralistic goal in mind.
The ACLU certainly represents millions of people - they have 500,000 members and act for the benefit of a country of over 300 million. As for their goals... pardon me for asking, but can you rephrase "single, pluralistic goal" in a less obtuse fashion?

mcdonl
February 1, 2013, 11:18 AM
Just because you were told that by a state senator doesn't mean you have to listen to him. Use your own judgment. If something makes sense to you, or doesn't make sense, then point it out.

My own views tend to be unpopular both among most gun supporters, and most gun control people. Oh well. Better to be unpopular than to be dishonest with yourself.

No, I dont have to listen to him but I am smart enough to realize that one mans lone voice is not the same as the NRA and SAM... I do not agree with everything any organization does but when it comes to a fight of this size the ideal of "your vote counts" is a cute philosophy but it will not matter as much as the support the NRA and SAM can bring to the fight.

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:18 AM
So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....
Based upon his need to be neither on the "right" or the "left" and thus feel good about himself for being "in the middle." :barf:

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:19 AM
There is no middle ground on a constitutionally granted right. You either have it or you don't. They've been taking your proposed "middle ground" for almost a century now, and these 2nd Amendment infractions are becoming more and more frequent. By believing there is still a middle ground shows how little you have been paying attention. The fictitious middle ground is just another device used to bring us closer and closer to the end of 2nd Amendment.
I agree with you that there is no middle ground in terms of the Constitution. If ever a law were passed that would attempt to seize your guns, I would be fighting right along with you with every means at my disposal.

But we're a long way off from that, and there IS middle ground in these discussions. For example, I am very much against what Bloomberg is doing. I am against what Feinstein is proposing. I don't believe we should ban assault rifles. I no longer believe we should limit high capacity magazines. I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.

HankR
February 1, 2013, 11:20 AM
could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in.

Timmy, we've been compromising with this evil for the last 79 years. What you're calling the middle ground would have been laughed at by almost all of society when we first started the compromising. They took half in '34, so now the "middle" was a 25% of our rights, they took half again in '68, so the new middle it 12.5%, they took a few little chunks with various executive actions and took another big chunk (half of the half that was left after the other half) in '94. Then some interpretations and import bans...

Now you want us to "compromise" and give up half of what we have left?


Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

And for that I am eternally grateful. If you and your ilk could explain your "moderate" positions to those who fought and died for the freedoms you are giving up (in the spirit of compromise) what do you think they would say? Could you explain how limiting a gun to X number of rounds in not infringing, but limiting it to x-y is ridiculous? This is what compromising leaves us with. We get to keep half of what's left, until next time.

Solo
February 1, 2013, 11:20 AM
So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....The answer is 42, of course.

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:22 AM
I agree with you that there is no middle ground in terms of the Constitution. If ever a law were passed that would attempt to seize your guns, I would be fighting right along with you with every means at my disposal.

But we're a long way off from that, and there IS middle ground in these discussions. For example, I am very much against what Bloomberg is doing. I am against what Feinstein is proposing. I don't believe we should ban assault rifles. I no longer believe we should limit high capacity magazines. I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.
OK you've come a long way. But there is one problem with "universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms" .... and that problem is that criminals will follow none of those new laws. Only the people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to bring their guns to trade at a FFL, and only people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to register.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:24 AM
The ACLU certainly represents millions of people - they have 500,000 members and act for the benefit of a country of over 300 million. As for their goals... pardon me for asking, but can you rephrase "single, pluralistic goal" in a less obtuse fashion?
Pluralism works in politics when a minority is willing to make their primary issue the key to their voting. In other words, the NRA has remained powerful, despite being a minority, because their members and supporters are willing to vote for candidates based on their views on gun rights over and above all other political concerns. The ACLU supporters have shown no willingness to do the same.

HankR
February 1, 2013, 11:24 AM
I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.

What possible goal would registration serve, other than to aid in confiscation? Do you favor registration only so that, after the next round of compromise, you can more easily confiscate the newly banned firearms?

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:26 AM
OK you've come a long way. But there is one problem with "universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms" .... and that problem is that criminals will follow none of those new laws. Only the people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to bring their guns to trade at a FFL, and only people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to register.
Obviously we disagree. I posted in another thread specific to that issue explaining my reasons. Perhaps we shouldn't cloud up this thread with that discussion.

Solo
February 1, 2013, 11:26 AM
Pluralism works in politics when a minority is willing to make their primary issue the key to their voting. In other words, the NRA has remained powerful, despite being a minority, because their members and supporters are willing to vote for candidates based on their views on gun rights over and above all other political concerns. The ACLU supporters have shown no willingness to do the same.
Ah, so you're saying the ACLU members will vote for candidates who will trample on civil liberties when NRA members will not vote for candidates likely to enact gun control.

Xfire68
February 1, 2013, 11:27 AM
But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in. Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

You could argue that point but, you would be wrong.

You keep saying that we need to compromise when all that really means is to give up more of our rights.

This is what compromise has gotten us:

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog"

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?m=1

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:28 AM
Obviously we disagree. I posted in another thread specific to that issue explaining my reasons. Perhaps we shouldn't cloud up this thread with that discussion.
So you think criminals, who by definition "break the law" are going to register their weapons with the Federal Government and only trade weapons through an FFL?

Seriously, the thugs in Chicago will not follow these rules, and Adam Lanza would still have stolen his mom's guns.

mcdonl
February 1, 2013, 11:32 AM
Just so everyone understands who your debating with....

Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

I posted that because most people assume that if you are a THR member you own guns or are at least interested in them.

So timmy, have you learned enough? Or do you want to continue arguing the same points?

Justin
February 1, 2013, 11:35 AM
The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.

Pay a fine and, presumably have the magazine confiscated? Or, in your world would the cop simply pat you on the head, and send you on your way with a piece of contraband considered so dangerous the state sees fit to punish you simply for having it?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

Reloadron
February 1, 2013, 11:38 AM
Injured veteran arrested in weapons investigation

That's it, four short paragraphs providing next to no actual information. Leaves one hell of a lot to the imagination in my opinion.

As to the argument concerning magazine capacity and what the gun rights advocates should concede? The problem is plain and simple. Every time the gun lobby has made a concession the anti gun lobby comes back wanting more and more. This goes well beyond guns and magazine capacity. Every time another constitutional right is usurped, they want more. Even a fool should readily see that those who would usurp the rights of others will never stop till those with rights and clinging to them, have none.

When I was a kid my father had a saying he would use with me. "Ronald, I give you an inch and you take a yard". Thus I have learned never give these people an inch because they will take a yard! History has shown me that much.

Just My Take
Ron

SSN Vet
February 1, 2013, 11:39 AM
I :fire: NY

(and I've never used that emotocon b4)

and will not spend one dime there.... period.

Unfortunately, I have to pass through if I drive anywhere outside of New England. But I make sure I tank up b4 hitting the state line and don't stop for any reason.

bobdubois
February 1, 2013, 11:56 AM
Regarding the original post:

From the NYS Police:

Q: What if I have a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds?

A: You can permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser by January 15, 2014.

More info on the NYS law here:

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

r1derbike
February 1, 2013, 01:25 PM
Just because you were told that by a state senator doesn't mean you have to listen to him. Use your own judgment. If something makes sense to you, or doesn't make sense, then point it out.

My own views tend to be unpopular both among most gun supporters, and most gun control people. Oh well. Better to be unpopular than to be dishonest with yourself.Timster, after reading your posts in various threads, I'll just sum-up my collective "take" on your views (I'll defend your views with my life), "The road to hell is paved with ignorant good intention".

Don't take this personally, it is just another view on these forums!

greenmtnguy
February 1, 2013, 01:31 PM
Timmy - It is also ridiculous to "blame" the NRA or its position for the passage of this law in New York State. Cuomo was simply trying to "one-up" all his liberal buddies and forced this bill through the state congress and senate in barely 24 hours of having it printed and released from his closed committee. There was no time allowed for public comments and virtually no time allowed for debate on the floor. And, the politicians who should have known better failed their constituents that day. Cuomo and Bloomberg intentionally rammed this through to prevent/minimize the opportunity for anyone putting the brakes on the crazy train, and the crazy train took off.

Given the behavior of our government "representatives" such as these, and Feinstein, etc. how can someone not understand that those who are fighting for their constitutional rights do NOT TRUST these agenda-driven fanatics. I've always been a man of my word, as I suspect many here to be. But I also have understood for many many years that ACTIONS speak louder than words. And, by the actions of these politicians, we are rightly concerned to no longer consider their words have much merit.


Maybe we will eventually meet somewhere in the middle, happy or not. But the only way to slow down a strong force in one direction is with an equally strong force in the opposite direction. Nothing else will work when dealing with simple-minded liberals of this magnitude.

Carl N. Brown
February 1, 2013, 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by timmy4
The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.

Federal gun law is not regulatory law with regulatory penalties: it is criminal law and starts with fedeal felony penalties even in cases where people honestly believe they were complying with the gun laws. Because that is how the Tim Sullivans and Tom Dodds who write this stuff wanted it. Which is why people liek me have learned to resist extensions to the Title I and Title Federal firearms Laws.

On another thread, Timmy4, you missed the NCIC when proposing stolen gun reporting: since 1967, the National Crime Information Center NCIC run by the FBI has kept records on stolen guns, cars, boats, and other valuables. 1967. I reported a stolen revolver to NCIC in the early 1970s. They take the make, model, serial number, and if the gun shows up and is not needed as evidence there is a good chance it could be returned to the lawful owner.
See FBI - About NCIC http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic
The NCIC also includes federal criminal records and is one of the databases consulted in a National Instant Check System NICS background check.

If anyone is proposing a stolen gun registry in competition to, or confusion with, the NCIC, well that is typical of gun law proponents: they don't know the existing law, or their idea of existing law is stuck at the 1960s level gun control propaganda.

BHP FAN
February 1, 2013, 02:31 PM
Timmy, you seem intelligent, but you keep missing the point, you can't have a compromise, if only one party wants to compromise. we have 9,000 gun related laws on the books already, here in California we have back ground checks, there is no gunshow ''loop hole'', we've had a ten round magazine limit since the 90's, if you have an AK or AR you have to have a ''bullet button'' to release the magazine, and now DiFi has a new ban that wants to take away the handguards on a legal ALREADY California LEGAL nuetered AR 15! WE cannot compromise anymore. The Antis have never compromised ONE BIT.

Texan Scott
February 1, 2013, 02:42 PM
Tim, the 'middle ground' is not level ground. It slopes gently but increasingly to the left.

Giving up something in exchange for nothing is not compromise; it's concession.

We're being asked to give a little more, tolerate a bit more infringement, a little more, a bit more.... what are we getting in return that wasn't already ours?

Giving up some of my rights in exchange for being allowed to keep some of my rights isn't compromise... it's infringment and gradually encroaching oppression.

The real lie, though, is that if we give up some of our rights in exchange for being 'allowed' to keep some of our rights, we aren't really going to be allowed to keep them. Those are the rights they'll want us to give up next time in exchange for being allowed to 'keep' the rest.... and so on.

This is the encroaching nature of progressive infringement, Tim.

Some of us simply refuse to give up any more.

I refuse.

Coop45
February 1, 2013, 02:55 PM
Timmy,
You have convinced me.......to send some more money to the NRA-ILA. There is no middle ground with my constitutional rights.

Skribs
February 1, 2013, 03:07 PM
But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted.

New York already had fairly strict laws. It's not like they went from a constitutional RKBA state to this overnight. They already had the laws in place that you consider "reasonable" and then this time they took it an extra step, ignoring their own legal process and granting a temporary waiver so the law could be fixed for LEO exemption. This is why we fear "reasonable" control, because it's just the next step towards the next "reasonable" control.

Redlg155
February 1, 2013, 04:05 PM
But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted.


It's fun to feed the sharks as long as you don't run out of fish...

Carl N. Brown
February 1, 2013, 04:19 PM
According to comment posted to correct that story:
...He was simply selling 5 empty magazines EMPHASIS on EMPTY, there was no weapon in the truck that uses said magazines nor ammo....

bobdubois post #42:
From the NYS Police:
Q: What if I have a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds?
A: You can permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser by January 15, 2014.

But if you transport the empty magazines to sell them, we'll bust you if we catch you. Welcome to the Catch-22 world of gun laws.
:banghead:

nazshooter
February 1, 2013, 05:03 PM
As to the slippery slope argument, I don't buy it. Every proposed law in this country, regardless of the issues involved, should be considered on it's own individual merits, and not as part of some trend one way or the other. If a law makes sense, we should pass it, and if it doesn't make sense, we should not.

That completely ignores political reality. NY legislators had already gotten away with strict gun laws and therefore felt safe passing even stricter ones. Washington works the same way. If our legislators get away with a magazine ban or UBC and aren't punished at the voting booth then they will believe it's safe to pass more restrictions such as turning the UBC into registration. IMHO many of our supposedly pro-2a legislators only support us because of our votes and money but otherwise have no strong personal beliefs on the matter or may even privately disagree with us. If they think for a second that they can get away with throwing us under the bus they will do it.

Surely someone has pointed out to you by now Diane Feinstein's "turn them all in" quote. This is their ultimate goal and I for one will not support any law that makes that goal easier to accomplish.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

guntech59
February 1, 2013, 05:14 PM
What really happened.....Nathan Haddad was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving....then he took off and lead the police on a chase. After he was finally stopped again.....that is when the post ban (made after Sep 1994) mags were found. They were in plain view in the seat of the car.

This guy had been at Ft Drum for a while and knew the rules.

I hate NYS gunlaws, but they are what they are. You follow them or deal with the punishment.

Unfortunately....he is going to get slammed.

BHP FAN
February 1, 2013, 05:15 PM
Maybe he can get David Gregory's lawyer!

NosaMSirhC
February 1, 2013, 05:15 PM
What really happened.....Nathan Haddad was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving....then he took off and lead the police on a chase. After he was finally stopped again.....that is when the post ban (made after Sep 1994) mags were found. They were in plain view in the seat of the car.

This guy had been at Ft Drum for a while and knew the rules.

I hate NYS gunlaws, but they are what they are. You follow them or deal with the punishment.

Unfortunately....he is going to get slammed.

Can you site a source for this because this changes EVERYTHING!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

mastiffhound
February 1, 2013, 05:23 PM
This sickens me. NY is becoming some sort of Judge Dreddish police state. You have no rights. Well you have the right to pay overly high taxes and overly high prices on goods. You do not have the right to a 32 oz Coca Cola! What a sad place to live. I can't believe anyone would live there who is a gun owner. You can't say this just happened, I didn't know. NYC has been taking away rights for a very long time. They will continue to do so until the people get rid of all the elected trash that is choking off the freedom of the fair and reasonable citizens of NYC. Start voting differently, period!

guntech59
February 1, 2013, 05:26 PM
I wish I could. The local paper did not share this info. However....it was heard on the scanner by several folks that I know well enogh to believe them.

highorder
February 1, 2013, 05:31 PM
I hesitate to speculate, but the simplest answer is that he was in possession of GI mags, clearly stamped with their postban manufacture date.

NosaMSirhC
February 1, 2013, 05:35 PM
I too am a "scanner listener" so I understand.

Thanks all the same!

Be Safe!

NosaM

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

jamesbeat
February 1, 2013, 05:54 PM
If that's the case, it changes everything.
Pre ban mags are readily available.
An absolutely moronic law that has never saved a single life, but at least it was easy to comply with.
Of course, now it's been replaced with an even more stupendously moronic law...

Ehtereon11B
February 1, 2013, 06:05 PM
From what I have read and heard about the case, the Army JAG office has been informed. And they do not mess around when a soldier is arrested by a civilian over some stupid law. Especially if the soldier had the JAG office go ahead. This won't end well for NY.

doc2rn
February 1, 2013, 06:35 PM
Sounds like the police just wanted to take his personal property. Definately a case I would take to court. I hope he wins enough to set him and his up for life. NY should be ashamed of it's leadership.

larryh1108
February 1, 2013, 07:16 PM
Well, we seem to have the test case to challenge the new laws. The NRA-IL should jump on this to ride it thru the SC. There had to be a first and unfortunately for this guy, he volunteered.

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 1, 2013, 08:32 PM
Someone may want to compare the date of the article to the date the new law was introduced.

Cesiumsponge
February 1, 2013, 09:02 PM
There is an active fundraiser for Nathan Haddad. It's gone from $3,000ish to over $20,000 in the course of a couple days. Feel free to donate, or wait for more information to come out, if you feel something isn't adding up. The newest bit of information paints the situation in a new light, if it proves to be accurate.

In any case...

http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc#description

guntech59
February 1, 2013, 09:14 PM
From what I have read and heard about the case, the Army JAG office has been informed. And they do not mess around when a soldier is arrested by a civilian over some stupid law. Especially if the soldier had the JAG office go ahead. This won't end well for NY.
Ummmm, he was medically discharged in 2010. JAG will do nothing.

This also has nothing to do with the new law.

Fastcast
February 1, 2013, 09:35 PM
Nathan Haddad was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving.

Of course he was....Has he been charged with DWI or just the other crimes, after being stopped and likely harassed?

guntech59
February 2, 2013, 10:24 AM
Of course he was....Has he been charged with DWI or just the other crimes, after being stopped and likely harassed?
Again, the local paper has not had anything about any charges except the charge of the "illegal" magazines. What I know, came over the scanner. Perhaps the other charges are not spectacular enough for the media.

Cop hater, huh?

Fastcast
February 2, 2013, 02:16 PM
Cop hater, huh?

Hardly...As a matter of fact, my brother is a LEO

Lets be honest, after midnight it's just not at all uncommon to be pulled over for bogus reasons. I believe it's called fishing.

Naive, huh?

guntech59
February 2, 2013, 02:35 PM
Hardly...As a matter of fact, my brother is a LEO

Lets be honest, after midnight it's just not at all uncommon to be pulled over for bogus reasons. I believe it's called fishing.

Naive, huh?
What your brother does for a living has nothing to do with my question. You seemed to assume that the cops were doing something shady.

Fastcast
February 2, 2013, 02:49 PM
What your brother does for a living has nothing to do with my question. You seemed to assume that the cops were doing something shady.

Sure it does, seeing as you accused me of being a cop hater. Some LEO's are corrupt, whether you believe it or not. Because I asked about a fishing expedition, I'm a "cop hater"? :rolleyes:

Deltaboy
February 2, 2013, 07:58 PM
Sounds like the Army needs to step in and tell Jefferson County to buzz off.

guntech59
February 3, 2013, 01:01 PM
Fastcast....ridiculous discussion. Have a nice day.

Deltaboy....Haddad is no longer in the US Army. He was discharged, medically, in 2010. They will do notbing.

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army Veteran Arrested in New York for possession of AR15 Magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!