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

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...

That's sad.

Did you read the comment?

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.

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.

The police who arrested his were probably in violation of the new law at the time too.

What he was or wasn`t has nothing to do with the reported charges.

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?

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.

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.

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, timmy, you reap what you sow.

radiotom said:

Well, timmy, you reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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.

Solo said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

timmy4 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

jamesbeat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

mcdonl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bianchi? said:

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?

Click to expand...

Probably not. Wow, what a confusing mess of laws.

So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....

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.

Click to expand...

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?