First person charged with too many bullets in gun under NY SAFE ACT


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
May 13, 2013, 09:09 PM
.


I hope he fights this and wins.





http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/man_charged_with_too_many_bull.html





.
Man charged with too many bullets in gun under NY Safe Act

May 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- State police have charged a 31-year-old Hudson Valley driver with a misdemeanor after he was pulled over and found with two more bullets in his handgun magazine than allowed under New York's new gun control law.

They say their investigation showed the semi-automatic on the passenger seat was a legally possessed but its magazine contained nine rounds, not seven as required since April 15.
..

If you enjoyed reading about "First person charged with too many bullets in gun under NY SAFE ACT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Double Naught Spy
May 13, 2013, 09:14 PM
That isn't the whole story, though he may be the first charged that wasn't the only reason he was arrested from the sounds of it...
https://www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30582

He was also charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree, for which he could have been arrested as well.

usmarine0352_2005
May 13, 2013, 09:28 PM
.

Driving with a suspended license isn't good, but it's not too bad luckily and would be considered minor. It's usually handled with a small fine.
.

splithoof
May 13, 2013, 10:05 PM
Once again, his troubles could have been totally avoided had he not drawn attention in the first place. It is wise for any citizen who is armed to keep a low profile; this means blending in, and not giving authorities reason to take notice.

Double Naught Spy
May 13, 2013, 10:35 PM
Handled with a small fine and/or up to 30 days in jail. You forgot the jail part, usmarine.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/V/20/511

jim in Anchorage
May 13, 2013, 10:43 PM
splithoof: He was pulled over for inadequate license plate lamp. You check yours every time you drive?

medalguy
May 13, 2013, 10:57 PM
I may start!!

usmarine0352_2005
May 13, 2013, 11:15 PM
Handled with a small fine and/or up to 30 days in jail. You forgot the jail part, usmarine.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/V/20/511


I can tell you that I've never heard of anyone spending 30 days in jail for DAS.




Just like 5 years in prison for recording a movie.
.

316SS
May 13, 2013, 11:57 PM
splithoof: He was pulled over for inadequate license plate lamp. You check yours every time you drive?
Ooooooh SNAP!

Seriously though, I should check my license plate lamp for sufficient lumens. Note to self.

henschman
May 14, 2013, 12:22 AM
Should have kept it concealed.

splithoof
May 14, 2013, 12:23 AM
^^^^Jim;
I check every lamp, brake light, turn signal, headlamp, and tire pressure every sunday morning, and verify that the current registration sticker has not been tampered with or exterior lenses cracked EVERY DAY. You see, I reside in an area that is known for hyper enforcement of even the tiniest vehicle of equipment infraction, where revenue generation is the main objective of the local law enforcement, and citizens deal with very surley police. I have watched them do a pat-down on an 81 yo female, because she had a small chip in the windshield.
I stand by my statement of keeping a low profile.

TennJed
May 14, 2013, 12:31 AM
splithoof: He was pulled over for inadequate license plate lamp. You check yours every time you drive?
I do check my drivers license everyday to make sure it is not suspended. I don't the the bad tag light nullified his DL.

If we are being honest, a person driving on a suspended DL is not making good choices. When he got it suspended and when he decided to keep on driving with it. The vast majority of the time you make your own luck. Chances are he is not the first person pulled over for a minor traffic offense who was violating the safe act. Why have we not read about those people? They make better life choices, whether that is concealing their weapon and/or keeping their DL valid

thump_rrr
May 14, 2013, 12:32 AM
That isn't the whole story, though he may be the first charged that wasn't the only reason he was arrested from the sounds of it...
https://www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30582

He was also charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree, for which he could have been arrested as well.
I've been charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree twice in Ny.
Both times my fines were already paid but the system was not updated to reflect this.
The charges were dismissed both times even though it was a great inconvenience for me since I'm from out of state.
Ny probably has the most antiquated system for reporting the payment of motor vehicle fines.
It is very possible that he had paid his fine in some small court in the middle of nowhere and the information was never forwarded to Albany to be entered into the system.

Either way he's pooched.

BP44
May 14, 2013, 12:36 AM
:banghead: poor folks. Lambs to the slaughter

jim in Anchorage
May 14, 2013, 01:32 AM
I do check my drivers license everyday to make sure it is not suspended. I don't the the bad tag light nullified his DL.

And how do you do that? Call DMV first thing in the morning before you drive? DL's can be suspended for back child support, and you may or may not know it happened.

Bit surprised the straw man DL argument came up here. The real issue is he's facing a weapons charge for having 9 in clip.

Jim Watson
May 14, 2013, 01:38 AM
The 7 good 8 bad law is like many others, it is a piling on offense.
They are not going around checking magazines (yet) but if the snag you on it while pursuing something else, they always like a multitude of charges so they can be sure of a conviction on something or another.

TennJed
May 14, 2013, 01:54 AM
And how do you do that? Call DMV first thing in the morning before you drive? DL's can be suspended for back child support, and you may or may not know it happened.

Bit surprised the straw man DL argument came up here. The real issue is he's facing a weapons charge for having 9 in clip.
Well, I pay my child support (been doing it every month for 15 years) I also pay the rare speeding ticket I get. I do not put myself in a position to have my DL suspended

Not defending the safe act here, but the man obviously made a SERIES of bad choices.

jim in Anchorage
May 14, 2013, 02:31 AM
Again, a straw man argument. The valid DL is not relevant here. He was pulled over for a chicken <removed> reason and is now looking at a weapons charge for having 9 instead of 7.
Let's stick to the subject here. Not you're perfect driving record.

savanahsdad
May 14, 2013, 02:35 AM
I got stoped about 18 years ago for tread depth, (yes the cops around here are board, no real crime here!) he just gave me a waring ,but when he ran my DL it came back canceled ??? I said what ? he said he didn't know , he check twice , they said cancelled ? not revoked, exp. or suspended, ? turned out my X-wife had bounced a check (or a bunch, I forget ) at the same time I renewed my license , so when my check to the DMV bounce they cancelled it , so as for this guys DL ? did he know ? hard telling . maybe , but did he know the new law on 7 rounds ? sometimes when a new law is put on the books , it is months before you have to worry about it , I think some of the new laws in CO don't start tell July. ,maybe he heard they were fighting it and thoght it was on hold tell then, ?? eather way is this guy a real BAD GUY ? I think not , this is just another bad gun law that will make good folks look bad ,:mad:

jim in Anchorage
May 14, 2013, 03:01 AM
I got stoped about 18 years ago for tread depth, (yes the cops around here are board, no real crime here!) he just gave me a waring ,but when he ran my DL it came back canceled ??? I said what ? he said he didn't know , he check twice , they said cancelled ? not revoked, exp. or suspended, ? turned out my X-wife had bounced a check (or a bunch, I forget ) at the same time I renewed my license , so when my check to the DMV bounce they cancelled it , so as for this guys DL ? did he know ? hard telling . maybe , but did he know the new law on 7 rounds ? sometimes when a new law is put on the books , it is months before you have to worry about it , I think some of the new laws in CO don't start tell July. ,maybe he heard they were fighting it and thoght it was on hold tell then, ?? eather way is this guy a real BAD GUY ? I think not , this is just another bad gun law that will make good folks look bad ,

Yep. Some how this guy driving on a Suspeded lesinse and a dim LP bulb puts him in the many bad choices category. So he just asked to get busted for too many rounds in his clip.
The whole gun thing seems to have been lost on this thread.

xxjumbojimboxx
May 14, 2013, 03:03 AM
Maybe im an (censored) but if i lived in NY i would make it a point to always have 100 mags with 7 rds in them. I really dont care if it had to be in a backpack.... moronic law.

jim in Anchorage
May 14, 2013, 03:47 AM
Maybe im an (censored) but if i lived in NY i would make it a point to always have 100 mags with 7 rds in them. I really dont care if it had to be in a backpack.... moronic law.
I have many friends in upstate NY, all gun owners and I talk to them often.
To a man, non compliance is their course of action.

State Farmer
May 14, 2013, 03:56 AM
It goes to show you that not all police officers are on our side. There are many cops that would have overlooked that. They will not enforce these stupid new laws. Some will and they are the ones you gotta watch out for.

Double Naught Spy
May 14, 2013, 07:40 AM
Again, a straw man argument. The valid DL is not relevant here. He was pulled over for a chicken <removed> reason and is now looking at a weapons charge for having 9 instead of 7.

He was pulled over for 100% valid reasons as per the traffic laws. These included both a vehicle infraction and a traffic infraction.
https://www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30582

Gregory Dean, Jr.'s gun wasn't concealed and was spotted by cops. He was driving with a suspended license and well as the Safe Act violation. If you are going to drive around with a car out of legal spec and violate traffic laws, you will get noticed. As is often the case when this happens, cops made additional discoveries that Dean wasn't fully above board. I would file this under being stupid enough to get caught.

HOOfan_1
May 14, 2013, 09:48 AM
Still irrelevant to this thread....
The SAFE act is a set of flypaper laws. Whether he was breaking other laws or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was charged under the SAFE act.

Unjust laws are unjust, whether they are broken by idiots or not.

Creature
May 14, 2013, 09:53 AM
I wonder if the NY state trooper who pulled Mr. Dean over was carrying the standard issue sidearm, the Glock 37, the magazine for which carries 3 more rounds than is permissible per the NY SAFE ACT...

tarakian
May 14, 2013, 10:30 AM
As a New Yorker, I appreciate the attitude of non-compliance, but the only thing it will accomplish is the loss of permit. Handgun permits in NY are issued at the Permit Officer's discretion and can be revoked at any time. You can be pretty sure that not following gun laws, no matter how wrong they may be, is one of the things that will get your permit yanked.

hang fire
May 14, 2013, 10:37 AM
I may start!!
Then the government has already won.

BSA1
May 14, 2013, 10:41 AM
Since this thread is way off topic.

In regards to the comments about the driver deserving to be stopped for a dim taillight as a active LEO working in a major population such as the northeast I guarrantee I can legally stop every one of you.

The first way is too simply follow you long enough until you make a driving mistake.

The second is nervious driver. Ever wonder why the heck the police are following you so long so you start checking the rear view mirror more and more often. Hmmm, as a LEO a law abiding citizen won't need to be so nervous so you must be hiding something.

Third is you or your car fit the description of being involved in crime, for example robbery. Care to guess how many robberies occur in heavily populated area? And in a getaway car fitting the same general description as yours, say for example a blue 4 door. N.Y. City is only a 2 -3 hours away.

I live in a mostly rural farming area. One night I was stopped by smallville police for a burnt out license plate light. When the officer realized he had made a mistake of stopping another leo he explained that a red pickup with multiple occupants had been driving around town shooting off fireworks and was last seen leaving town. I was by myself coming into town.

Mind you I live in farming community and dozens of pickups and farm trucks come into town daily with license plates obscured by mud and dirt or damaged by trailer hitches banging into them.

But the topic is not about probable cause for the traffic stop. It is about violation of the SAFE Act. Since the presence of the gun in plain view was not a violation of the law did the officer even have the authority to seize it to begin with? Hence this may be a better search and seizure case.

And a sharp point is made about how many rounds the trooper had in his gun (although it has nothing to do with the SAFE Act charge.)

Jim, West PA
May 14, 2013, 12:44 PM
When the officer realized he had made a mistake of stopping another leo
Why, BSA1 is that a mistake ?
You can answer me in a pm.

Double Naught Spy
May 14, 2013, 01:15 PM
Still irrelevant to this thread....
The SAFE act is a set of flypaper laws. Whether he was breaking other laws or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was charged under the SAFE act.

Unjust laws are unjust, whether they are broken by idiots or not.

Unjust laws are still the law until either removed or ruled upon by the courts. Whether or not they are unjust is a matter of opinion.

I wonder if the NY state trooper who pulled Mr. Dean over was carrying the standard issue sidearm, the Glock 37, the magazine for which carries 3 more rounds than is permissible per the NY SAFE ACT...

He was probably open carrying it which is not legal under New York law, except for folks like LEOs. However, it really doesn't matter what the trooper was or was not carrying. Mr. Dean was breaking the law, several.

X-Rap
May 14, 2013, 01:38 PM
I guarrantee I can legally stop every one of you.

The first way is too simply follow you long enough until you make a driving mistake.
There are to many laws made for the sole purpose of getting the officers eyes and nose in your window.

12many
May 14, 2013, 01:49 PM
Getting 'caught' breaking a BS law. This guy may not be an angel, but the government keeps passing law after law. I can not keep up. I bet no one here knows every law in the state and most have not read the penal code. The police can always 'find' a reason to pull you over. This is well established. I am sure they could find something wrong with my car because there are so many rules.

One time I got pulled over for no other reason than because my bug screen that was way above my headlights was red. My truck was also red. Officer said it was a violation. Clear would have been ok, but looking through it, it still would have looked red.

Blame the law makers.

TennJed
May 14, 2013, 02:26 PM
Again, a straw man argument. The valid DL is not relevant here. He was pulled over for a chicken <removed> reason and is now looking at a weapons charge for having 9 instead of 7.
Let's stick to the subject here. Not you're perfect driving record.

Very relevant to the subject. The law is unjust but it is law. This thread is about a person being arrested for it. If you want to change the subject and start a thread on how to get the law changed you can. Fact is right now it is the law and if you wish to break an unjust law then it would be wise to have the rest of your stuff in order. Don't be an idiot when breaking unjust laws. Again people tend to make their own luck.

HOOfan_1
May 14, 2013, 02:42 PM
Unjust laws are still the law until either removed or ruled upon by the courts. Whether or not they are unjust is a matter of opinion.


Considering this board has almost been unanimously against the SAFE Act....what exactly is it that you are expecting?

We oppose the SAFE act.
OP posted that someone is being charged under the SAFE Act
We are discussing the routes to having the SAFE Act repealed.

So again...what relevance does anything else this guy did, have on our discussion?

What exactly does it matter if he broke other laws? We are not discussing those other laws...we are discussing the SAFE act. Bringing up other laws the guy broke IS IRRELEVANT


Very relevant to the subject. The law is unjust but it is law. This thread is about a person being arrested for it. If you want to change the subject and start a thread on how to get the law changed you can. Fact is right now it is the law and if you wish to break an unjust law then it would be wise to have the rest of your stuff in order. Don't be an idiot when breaking unjust laws. Again people tend to make their own luck.


No it is not relevant....Do you know that this guy was intentionally breaking the law in order to make a stand?
If he did....yeah he is a idiot for breaking other laws. If he wasn't I still don't see how anyone can justify piling on charges of crap laws.

Should we assume that only people who have their "crap together" should be protected by the Constitution???? Nope, sorry that is not how it should nor is it how it does work.

TennJed
May 14, 2013, 03:47 PM
Considering this board has almost been unanimously against the SAFE Act....what exactly is it that you are expecting?

We oppose the SAFE act.
OP posted that someone is being charged under the SAFE Act
We are discussing the routes to having the SAFE Act repealed.

So again...what relevance does anything else this guy did, have on our discussion?

What exactly does it matter if he broke other laws? We are not discussing those other laws...we are discussing the SAFE act. Bringing up other laws the guy broke IS IRRELEVANT





No it is not relevant....Do you know that this guy was intentionally breaking the law in order to make a stand?
If he did....yeah he is a idiot for breaking other laws. If he wasn't I still don't see how anyone can justify piling on charges of crap laws.

Should we assume that only people who have their "crap together" should be protected by the Constitution???? Nope, sorry that is not how it should nor is it how it does work.

You are embellishing and exaggerating for no reason. The constitution should protect everyone, we probably all agree on that. Of course the safe act is absurd. One thing that people should take away from an event like this is, if you are going to break unjust laws then don't break multiple laws in process.

He is not the first person to actually violate the safe act, he is the first person to get arrested though. It is not surprising that the person who first got arrested also.

1) failed to keep car in proper working order
2) failed to keep his drivers license valid
3) drove even though he is prohibited

Again, the safe act is stupid, and if a resident of NY wants to make a decision to not comply then please do not be an idiot and break valid laws in the process.

HOOfan_1
May 14, 2013, 03:50 PM
1) failed to keep car in proper working order
2) failed to keep his drivers license valid
3) drove even though he is prohibited

Again, the safe act is stupid, and if a resident of NY wants to make a decision to not comply then please do not be an idiot and break valid laws in the process.

At the same time...his case might be able to get it nullified. Better a person who is already in trouble fight the fight, than for someone to fall on their sword in order to fight the fight.

cassandrasdaddy
May 14, 2013, 04:20 PM
Better a person who is already in trouble fight the fight, than for someone to fall on their sword in order to fight the fight.

absolutely not the case

you want someone "clean" as your test case

HOOfan_1
May 14, 2013, 04:27 PM
you want someone "clean" as your test case

The courts have shown in the past that they do not necessarily rule on specific laws based on the previous history of a person. They are ruling on the laws not the person. You don't have to worry about a jury when a law is being ruled upon.

Take Miranda v Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was hardly "clean"

cassandrasdaddy
May 14, 2013, 05:05 PM
you think hes gonna get the law struck down? got your checkbook out?
hes not got the resources.

HOOfan_1
May 14, 2013, 08:16 PM
you think hes gonna get the law struck down? got your checkbook out?
hes not got the resources.

He doesn't have to. Some RBKA group could fund his defense. It has certainly happened before

TCB in TN
May 14, 2013, 11:18 PM
Perhaps it is just me, but I find it odd that LEOs know every single obscure law on the books when it comes to stopping a citizen, but fail to know whether OC or in many cases whether legal CCW exists in their jurisdictions.

Further more it is amazing the number of mental gymnastics many will go through to blame a citizen for not knowing every jot or tittle in the law and excuse a LEO for their seeming lack of knowledge. Of course YMMV.

X-JaVeN-X
May 15, 2013, 12:50 AM
I thought this forum was "the high road"... not "the high horse"...? Some of you need to get off it...

herrwalther
May 15, 2013, 01:25 AM
The first way is too simply follow you long enough until you make a driving mistake.

In most NY jurisdictions, a police officer following a vehicle for more than 3 miles with lights off THEN pulling it over is entrapment and the charge gets thrown out. Saw it quiet a few times getting people out of stops in high school.

benEzra
May 15, 2013, 11:11 AM
He was probably open carrying it which is not legal under New York law, except for folks like LEOs. However, it really doesn't matter what the trooper was or was not carrying. Mr. Dean was breaking the law, several.
If the trooper had more than 7 rounds in his own magazine, he was breaking the same law he arrested the driver for breaking. The NY 'SAFE' Act does not exempt LEOs from the ridiculous magazine restrictions.

BSA1
May 15, 2013, 05:08 PM
JIM, WEST PA,

If you will reread my post the vehicle they were looking for was a red pickup with multiple occupants leaving town.

NOT a red pickup with one person coming into town.

Not even a close match.

He knew as well as I the tag light violation was b.s. as my state uses reflective tags.

pseudonymity
May 15, 2013, 11:22 PM
He is not the first person to actually violate the safe act, he is the first person to get arrested though. It is not surprising that the person who first got arrested also.

1) failed to keep car in proper working order
2) failed to keep his drivers license valid
3) drove even though he is prohibited


He is not the first person arrested on violations of the new laws, that distinction goes to Bill Greene in the town of Moreau. This person happened to be violating rule #4: being present in the 107th Assembly district of NY state. Bill Greene was arrested in the 43rd Senate district.

I will not bore you with the details of NY politics, but the public approval ratings of the Governor who pushed this travesty through have tanked since its passage. The state police who made both these arrests are part of a LE force that is headed by a superintendent that is appointed by the governor, not elected. The State Police budget comes directly from the state legislature.

There are 62 counties in NY state, but the first two arrests were done by State Police in two of the counties that are represented by two of the most vocal oppenents to the SAFE act - Kathy Marchione (43rd Senate) and Steve McLaughlin (107th assembly).

Perhaps in your state the law is equally applied, but here in NY, the law is just another tool to punish those who oppose your will.

herrwalther
May 16, 2013, 03:21 AM
If the trooper had more than 7 rounds in his own magazine, he was breaking the same law he arrested the driver for breaking. The NY 'SAFE' Act does not exempt LEOs from the ridiculous magazine restrictions.

Under the original SAFE Act that is correct. However as I read it and followed it, not having a LEO exemption was a big oops for the Governor. Latest news I have found show police officers sort of exempting themselves until the law gets the official exemption since Cuomo said he would work to get the law amended.

Solo
May 16, 2013, 03:50 AM
Latest news I have found show police officers sort of exempting themselves until the law gets the official exemption since Cuomo said he would work to get the law amended.

Gotta love selective enforcement.

Double Naught Spy
May 16, 2013, 09:28 AM
If the trooper had more than 7 rounds in his own magazine, he was breaking the same law he arrested the driver for breaking. The NY 'SAFE' Act does not exempt LEOs from the ridiculous magazine restrictions.

Under the Quick Links in the lower right corner of this page, under Law Enforcement Exemptions, this pops up when clicked...
http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-reform

The SAFE Act ensures that the men and women serving in law enforcement are able to carry out their duties. Law enforcement will continue to be able to possess assault weapons and high capacity magazines in order to protect New Yorkers. Law enforcement will also be able to possess those weapons and magazines where they are needed without limitation. Retired law enforcement will be subject to the same exemptions under federal law that existed before the SAFE Act.

According to here, LEOs are exempt...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18/ny-guv-looks-to-clarify-gun-law-after-concern-about-exemption-for-police/

It would appear that they are specifically exempted by another law 265.20[1][c]. http://www.waynecosheriff.org/peace%20officer%20exempt%20memo.pdf
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.20

265.20[1][c] was not nullified by the Safe Act and is still in effect.

pseudonymity
May 16, 2013, 10:56 AM
If the trooper had more than 7 rounds in his own magazine, he was breaking the same law he arrested the driver for breaking. The NY 'SAFE' Act does not exempt LEOs from the ridiculous magazine restrictions.

No, they stuffed that exemption in with the budget so that it could not reasonably be discussed without holding up the fiscal health of the entire state. The details are in S2607D part FF if anybody cares. LEO are now exempt, after all, some animals are more equal than others.

If you enjoyed reading about "First person charged with too many bullets in gun under NY SAFE ACT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!