Nathan Haddad would be facing a shorter prison sentence if he raped someone

In addition to a second amendment argument, we need to be pushing the eighth amendment as well. It is interesting to examine a list of the crimes that New York State considers LESS serious than simple possession of a few magazines.

Nathan Haddad, for those who haven’t been following, is a veteran with no previous criminal record who was arrested in New York State for having five empty thirty round magazines in the trunk of his car. This “crime” carries a maximum prison sentence of thirty five years (five class D felonies). Forcible rape and child molestation both carry a maximum sentence of twenty five years (class A felony). That is an interesting comparison, no?

A partial list of charges that carry shorter maximum sentences in New York than what Nathan Haddad is facing includes: Manslaughter, Attempted Murder, Rape, Kidnapping, Arson, Incest, Robbery, Burglary, Possession of a Chemical or Biological Weapon, Intimidating a Witness, Grand Larceny, Bribery, Compelling Prostitution, Manufacturing Methamphetamine, Soliciting an Act of Terrorism, Money Laundering, Forgery, and Criminal Conspiracy (Source: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/offense_level.htm)

Even if you don’t believe these laws infringe on the second amendment (a point I am not conceding), the punishments stipulated for breaking these laws are clearly violations of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, is there ANY OTHER issue where an action is a felony in one state, and perfectly legal in the next? Or that is a felony at the state level, but legal at the federal level? It seems like most felonies are crimes that are universally considered very serious -- stealing stuff, hurting people, killing people, etc. Weapons offenses are the only exception I can think of to this. How can the federal government and the rest of the states justify the lifetime stigma of calling someone a “felon” for actions that they would not even consider simple infractions?

If someone is wanted for magazine possession in New York, and they make it across the line into Pennsylvania, how is it right that Pennsylvania would extradite that person back to New York? Maybe it is time for the free states to declare that they will provide asylum for American citizens that are accused of non-crimes by the more repressive regimes.
.

I see your full faith and credit issue, and raise you a concealed carry permit.

It appears Cosmoline has made a good point -- and it goes beyond the full faith and credit clause. Article 4, section 2 of the constitution states:

"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

Still, I wonder whether "Crime" could be challenged, and the basis that there are certain things that New York et al do not have the authority to declare a "Crime". If nothing else, it would buy time for those fleeing -- since New York would have to take the free state to court, and the SAFE act would meanwhile be making its own way through the court system.

States are presently passing laws protecting their citizens from federal confiscation, in contradiction to federal supremecy. These are primarily symbolic acts for that reason, but they carry weight nonetheless. An assylum act would have similar results. If push comes to shove and we must resist, I'd much rather see states throwing their weight around, rather than leaving resistance to individual people. Much less messy that way.

Yeah, I love the 458 SOCOM thing. You can get 10 of those into the magazine, though, so they're still illegal in New York... unless you had them before the ban, AND you remember never to put more than 7 in them. :banghead:

I saw another article that said 35 years. I suppose I haven't seen anything that proves this is correct. Seven years is the max for possession of a single mag. Most of what I have read assumes they can be added up... but I could be wrong about that. Any lawyer types out there want to comment?

The article posted above indicates that the prosecuting attorney did in fact state that he would be allowed to serve the sentences concurrently, so it looks like seven years is the right number. I stand corrected.

One very interesting quote from her was that she did not understand why there was so much interest in this case. I wonder if a call or letter writing campaign indicating that this behavior on the part of the state is unacceptable could have any influence. I know this person is not elected, but there has to be some sense of accountability there. They don't write the laws, but I have to imagine they have some latitude in deciding who to prosecute. I find it hard to believe that any citizen of that county would find this case to be the best possible use of available tax payer funds.

For anyone interested in contact, the attorney doing the prosecuting is Chief Assistant District Attorney Krystina Mills. She works for Jefferson County District Attorney Cindy Intschert. Listed contact info for the district attorney's office is:

175 Arsenal Street
Watertown, NY 13601

Phone: 315-785-3053
Fax: 315-785-3371

No email is provided on the website.

I would imagine voters in that county hold more sway, but it can't hurt to let these people know that persecuting disabled veterans doesn't make them heroes in the eyes of the american public.

It would only be unusual because this degree of over reach was unusual (or at least, less blatant, so we didn't take notice).

Placing enforcement of the law with the executive branch (which this prosecutor is part of) is a deliberate check on the legislature's power. Refusal to enforce these laws on constitutional grounds is reasonable - and even the duty of someone who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution. The fact that this is no longer customary is irrelevant. As citizens, we have the right to petition ALL branches for redress of grievences - and a duty to make ourselves heard, regardless of the odds of changing anything.

If people like this prosecutor don't feel ostracized, we have failed to utilize the soap box. The next steps involve the ballot and jury boxes.

This shouldn't have to be said, but to be clear I would not ever advocate going further, unless all of the above had been subverted by naked force. I feel the need to say this, because I have heard a lot of dark talk lately. I too am skeptical of our ability to vote our way out of that this mess, but if we don't have sufficient public support to make these laws unenforceable by anything short of widespread suspension or subversion of jury trials, then we've got no business starting a fight. That, personally, would be my "line in the sand" - and one I think most reasonable people would agree with, both inside and outside of our community.