Manhattan millionaire faces 3 years in jail for pulling ‘unlicensed’ gun on burglar


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
March 16, 2013, 01:11 AM
.



Why don't I see the millionare being treated like your average citizen?



I wonder where the bodyguard was, and the fact that he left the gun there. Was the bodyguard in the bathroom?



Goes to show you, you don't need guns. Only armed bodyguards.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/man-faces-3-years-jail-pulling-unlicensed-gun-burg/#ixzz2NfkfWEd0





.
Man faces 3 years in jail for pulling ‘unlicensed’ gun on burglar inside his home

Thursday, March 14, 2013


A Manhattan millionaire faces three years in jail for drawing an unlicensed gun on a burglar inside his home.

George Bardwil, who owns linen company Bardwil Home, was in his E Street apartment when an intruder came into his home in January, The Daily Mail reports.

Mr. Bardwil, 60, threatened the intruder with a loaded .40 cal Sig Sauer. The man fled and Mr. Bardwil called the police.

After showing the cops footage from his home surveillance cameras, they arrested him under suspicions of owning an illegal firearm.

The businessman’s lawyer, Michael Bachner, told the New York Post that the gun is legally registered to the defendant’s bodyguard.

“There’s no dispute that George was being burglarized,” Mr. Bachner said. “George had been the victim of multiple burglaries, and the DA’s office concedes that it was used in self defense.”
.
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Manhattan millionaire faces 3 years in jail for pulling ‘unlicensed’ gun on burglar" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
March 16, 2013, 01:21 AM
That's shocking... Not that it happened but because he's an elite and they usually only make anti-American laws for us peasants. I'm sure he'll be able to throw money at it and it will all go away.

zorro45
March 16, 2013, 01:32 AM
He should have conferred w/ legal counsel before handing over the video to the cops. Makes me glad I do not live there.

Rembrandt
March 16, 2013, 08:09 AM
Yup, it's a stupid law.......guess New Yorkers got what they voted for. Let that be a lesson for everyone.

Pilot
March 16, 2013, 08:42 AM
They made their bed.

ASCTLC
March 16, 2013, 08:56 AM
Coming to Colorado real soon...:mad:

Carl N. Brown
March 16, 2013, 09:04 AM
I posted on this on thread about MAIG, but it bears repeating:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/linen_king_could_get_three_years_7g9bQvT5ho26e8hLtXjODO
Laura Italiano, "'Linen King' could get three years for illegal gun", New York Daily News, 13 Mar 2013.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/man-faces-3-years-jail-pulling-unlicensed-gun-burg/
Jessica Chasmar, "Man faces 3 years in jail for pulling ‘unlicensed’ gun on burglar inside his home", Washington Times, 14 Mar 2013.

A burglar intruded into the NYC home of 60 year old businessman, George Bardwil of Bardwil Home Linen company, who then threatened the burglar with a gun registered to the businessman's bodyguard. The burglar ran away, was arrested later. Bardwil called 911 and showed police surveillance video of the incident. The police arrested Bardwil for illegal possession; he faces up to three years under the Sullivan Act. The DA office conceded the gun was used in self defense, but charged Bardwil with felony gun possession. The handgun was not registered to the man who used it, making it an illegal gun.

George Bardwil has a history with NYPD and NYC:

o 27 May 2009 arrested for allegedly assaulting his housekeeper.
o Nov 2009 Bardwil pled guilty to midemeanor assault and got three years probation.
o Aug 2010 NYC was sued over losing a $187,000 jewel encrusted belt buckle when Bardwil was arrested May 2009.
o Oct 2011 $300,000 cash and jewelry robbed from his home, three suspects later arrested.
o May 2013 Bardwil (60) faces charges of assault against his ex-wife (26); her head hit the sidewalk outside Bardwil's apartment; Bardwil claims she fell.

steelerdude99
March 16, 2013, 09:04 AM
They made their bed.

Great pun Pilot as he made is millions in the linen business. But anyhow, he's got some other legal issues:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/linen_king_could_get_three_years_7g9bQvT5ho26e8hLtXjODO

Bardwil, 60, is still facing assault charges for allegedly pummeling his beautiful ex-wife, Emiko, 26, during an argument at the apartment in May. He remains free on $250,000 bail. The ex needed multiple staples to close a gash from her head hitting the sidewalk outside the apartment; Bardwil is claiming she just fell.

chuck

goldie
March 16, 2013, 09:10 AM
He shouldnt have called the police.Also,the gun was not registered to him, he shouldnt have been in posession of it,unfortunately , thats how the law works...

sota
March 16, 2013, 09:20 AM
wouldn't it be great if this guy fought the law all the way to SCOTUS, and won? I mean he's a member of the rich elite, he can afford it.

Carl N. Brown
March 16, 2013, 09:37 AM
In Tennessee even a sleaze bag can use any gun at hand for self-defense against an intruder in a domicile: does not have to be registered or licensed to the user. Defense against an intruder in the domicile with any gun legally owned by anyone in the the domicile, even a loaner. Illegal possession charge might kick in depending on conditions (felon in possession, gun turns up stolen on NCIC, firearm possessed or used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, could get up to 6 years).

We don' require a permit in the home or place of business, and there is no registration here. Permit required to "go armed" in defense in public areas.

Carl N. Brown
March 16, 2013, 09:40 AM
...all the way to SCOTUS...

2A defendants have to be squeaky clean, walking on water like Heller or MacDonalD. As noted above Bardwil has a history.

1A can be defended with Larry Flynt as a complaintant. 2A requires saints as complaintants.

steelerdude99
March 16, 2013, 09:48 AM
He shouldn’t have called the police. Also, the gun was not registered to him, he shouldn’t have been in possession of it; unfortunately, that’s how the law works...

That's a short response, but there is plenty wrong with it. I would venture to say that most of the readers of THR have take issue with the concept of a firearm that’s not registered to an individual. In the “Free states” as long as the person is not a felon (and the firearm otherwise legal), then defending their home with a firearm is their right. And why would you feel that not calling the police is the best option? Remember, the burgler is not the victim, the homeowner is the victim.

chuck

Pilot
March 16, 2013, 10:07 AM
Glad you got the pun. When you CHOOSE to live in a police state like NYC, and now NYS, you have to be extra careful to abide by the plethora of regs, and laws governing COMMON SENSE. Choose wisely.

vito
March 16, 2013, 10:27 AM
I live in Illinois where we do not yet have any form of legal concealed carry. Of course the thugs carry all the time, but so do a lot of law abiding citizens who fear for their safety. Living in Rockford, where we have a higher crime rate than Chicago, I suspect that many gun owners take a firearm with them when leaving their home. If the firearm ends up stopping an incident, without firing a shot, I can see why one might not call the police. Primarily this would be to avoid becoming the victim by getting arrested, which absolutely would happen if you were outside your home, and secondarily, because it is highly unlikely that the BG would ever be apprehended. In fact, I would guess that some folks specifically carry revolvers, rather than semi-autos so that if they actually have to fire their gun, no tell tale cartridge cases end up on the street. If an otherwise law abiding citizen uses his firearm to protect him or herself, and believes that if unreported the incident will never likely lead back to themselves, and with knowing that if reported will lead to their arrest, it seems practical not to call the police. The man who is the subject of this thread was probably foolish to ever call the NYPD. Even if he now wins the case it will have cost him a fortune in legal costs and I am sure he will not get the gun returned. The criminal justice system flat out does not work for the law abiding person who just wants the ability to defend himself and his family or his property.

UhKlem
March 16, 2013, 10:37 AM
In a just world the rich violator would be sentenced to trying to buy ammo at Walmart like the rest of us poor serfs. Perp walk him through the spandex and fries department, he'd never commit a 'get your name on an official list' violation again.

Gotta love the class warfare in these newspaper headlines don't you? Well, at least it balances out the commonly seen "Poor illiterate caught ...' headlines that predominate the crime headlines. No?

BBQJOE
March 16, 2013, 12:06 PM
He shouldnt have called the police.
Today 05:04 AM
That's definitely one school of thought.

It's a catch 22, and quite certainly why we don't hear more stories of armed self defense.

LemmyCaution
March 16, 2013, 12:20 PM
There is no "E Street" in Manhattan, NY. Which begs the question of what else the esteemed Washington Times may have gotten wrong in their traditional zeal to throw red meat on the rug for the less discerning members of America's conservative community.

And the "victim's" prior record certainly colors his credibility here.

Proceed with caution on this story, lest we beatify a thug instead of a saint.

Carl N. Brown
March 16, 2013, 12:54 PM
Yes. Would I want to use George as an 2A poster boy? No. But. Do even thugs have a right to defend themselves against intruders into their home using whatever is at hand?

George Bardwil lives on E. 51st Street in Manhattan. FWIW, Wash. Times seems to be echoing NY Daily News:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/linen_king_could_get_three_years_7g9bQvT5ho26e8hLtXjODO
Laura Italiano, "'Linen King' could get three years for illegal gun", New York Daily News, 13 Mar 2013.

FuzzyBunny
March 16, 2013, 01:04 PM
A multimillionare can afford the the attorneys to use every legal means possible to slow the process. It may be 10 years before it ever goes to trial.

I have seen first hand what ppl with cash can do in the courts. One man had whole team of them and just 2 were dedicated to making motions to the court they the judge had to respond to before it could move forward. As soon as one was replied to then another one was presented.

bill3424
March 16, 2013, 01:22 PM
I'm glad he at least has some $$$$ to get that lawyer.

usmarine0352_2005
March 16, 2013, 01:28 PM
.

He'll probably just plead to a misdemeanor ending it all.
.

gym
March 16, 2013, 01:51 PM
Don't believe what you read. By the time things make the papers, they have a habbit of changing drastically. Unless he had a "safe room" that he could have gone in and waited for police, the charges will eventually be dropped.
It's just the way things get done in NY. If the gun was illegal or he was carrying it, things would be more difficult, but if there is a legal weapon in reach, and your life is in danger, they aren't going to "go forward" with a prosecution. Unless there is more to this ,as I first said.

orionengnr
March 16, 2013, 10:16 PM
Remember poor ol' Plaxico? he was a multi-millionaire and went to the Big House for a year or two... Of course if it were you or me, probably would have been ten.
I live in Illinois where we do not yet have any form of legal concealed carry. Of course the thugs carry all the time, but so do a lot of law abiding citizens who fear for their safety.
Ermmmm...by definition, then they are not "law-abiding". :rolleyes:

Indifferent
March 16, 2013, 11:58 PM
I believe it to be our duty as the framers so put it to ignore unconstitutional laws. So they are law abiding.

As for this poor guy I really don't see how using a body guards gun is a crime.

JERRY
March 17, 2013, 12:12 AM
he was a millionaire, why didn't he buy his permit like the others?

PabloJ
March 17, 2013, 12:17 AM
Remember poor ol' Plaxico? he was a multi-millionaire and went to the Big House for a year or two... Of course if it were you or me, probably would have been ten.

Ermmmm...by definition, then they are not "law-abiding". :rolleyes:
I would NOT detain, process or prosecute them. No different then resistance fighters carrying weapons in Europe during WWII.

JERRY
March 17, 2013, 12:24 AM
I would NOT detain, process or prosecute them. No different then resistance fighters carrying weapons in Europe during WWII.

particularly when the nazi and new york governments are so similar with regards to who they allow to get gun permits.

joeschmoe
March 17, 2013, 12:24 AM
Let them eat cake.

Panzercat
March 17, 2013, 01:48 AM
1A can be defended with Larry Flynt as a complaintant. 2A requires saints as complaintants.
I'm so stealing that as a sig :D

barnbwt
March 18, 2013, 12:24 AM
1A can be defended with Larry Flynt as a complaintant. 2A requires saints as complaintants.
Wasn't Miller a mobster? He was good enough to get us "milita" arms, but not SBS's ('cuz he was murdered-by-mobsters before his court date and therefore couldn't justify their militia utility)

There's more reasons besides credibility we need these guys to be clean...

TCB

joeschmoe
March 18, 2013, 12:55 AM
No. I'm curious where you got that stuff. He was a bootlegger. He was convicted of bootlegging and the new NFA gun charge. Served his time on the bootlegging charge. On appeal his gun charge was overturned as unconstitutional. He finished his sentence and was never heard from again. Probably dead. The federal government appealed to the SCOTUS. He really had nothing to gain by paying a lawyer to go to the Supreme Court for him. He was already out, or dead. His lawyer didn't go because he didn't have a client.

barnbwt
March 19, 2013, 09:46 PM
Correct, I thought he was hooked up in organized crime, but he was only bootlegging (this guy hit the unconstitutional jackpot--quite a patriot, one might say ;))

Wikipedia said he was found shot before the court proceedings (I assume it was because we still associating with fellows of ill repute, but it may not have been). My point was "clean" plaintiffs stick around more--though baddies are perfectly capable of getting bogus laws rescinded if their attorney is any good (or bothers to show up).

I also realized that the ruling has a rather disconcerting logic; civvies' arms should not be restricted so long as they are servicible by an organized militia (contradicts current bans, etc.). However, by that same logic, if there are no organized militia (they are essentially dead as far as their original function goes), then there is no justifiable need for civilians to have anything! :eek:

Maybe I'm missing something here. The ruling also implies that the military has different weapons rights than civvies, since organized militia was the termed used for the units which our weapons are to be useful for. So the old saw about howitzers and machineguns being legal by this ruling is bogus (except for the fact that many urban police organizations now use SBR/S's and machine guns)

A better "restriction" would have been "any weapon that is likely unable to be used for legal purposes" --so no daisy cutters or indirect-fire weapons that likely cannot be used without some recklessness or lack of control ;). All point and click interfaces up man-portable size would be protected, however (unless their sights were really, really off). This statement puts the burden-of-ban on the banners, not the law-abiding, to justify a restriction.

TCB

Double Naught Spy
March 20, 2013, 10:30 AM
This happens with some regularity in NYC. There have been several HD shootings where the shoot was 100% legal, but the homeowner got tagged for the unlicensed firearm. The law isn't new. These events also go on in Chicago with some regularity as well.

zorro45
April 6, 2013, 01:49 AM
As the cops are so fond of saying, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Also, doctrine of competing harms. I don't have much sympathy for anyone with a 187K jewel encrusted belt buckle. That money would have been better invested in figuring out a way to befriend the licensing officials and get a permit.

Domina
April 6, 2013, 12:09 PM
New York's laws in this regard are immoral and clear violations of the individual human right to self defence. Until enough people recognize this and speak out for change, people will continue to be punnished for doing what is right in terms of defending themselves and their property. I would have loved to see the homeowner simply state "I have a human right to defend myself from violence and crime, and I have done nothing wrong, despite what the law says." instead of playing the "It's my body guard's" defence. We are not going to recover our civil rights by cowering and sitting at the back of the bus.

high_pockets
April 6, 2013, 09:44 PM
I see Bloomburg getting involved and getting the guy off on a suspended misdemeanor charge. After all, Bloomburg needs someone to do his dry cleaning for free for a while.

oneounceload
April 6, 2013, 09:53 PM
Deleted because everyone here is a jerk

PRM
April 7, 2013, 04:45 PM
He should have used a double barrel shot gun and just blasted a couple of times out the balcony window...:neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Manhattan millionaire faces 3 years in jail for pulling ‘unlicensed’ gun on burglar" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!