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

Legal Defense Fund for Nathan Haddad

pharmer said:

If every gun owner kicked a buck, he could afford a legal defense that would spank Gov Andy. Joe

Click to expand...

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

HorseSoldier said:

So judging by the mailing address for the DA, this offense occurred right outside Ft Drum? :banghead: How long was this guy actually out of the .mil? Were the mags ones that had been issued to him by the .mil, or privately purchased while he was still in the .mil?

Click to expand...

I'm wondering about this myself.

According to the Washington Times article I read:

"A police source also said that the magazines were stamped with the words “Restricted. For military use only.”"

Now, if true, this throws a few things into question to me:

He was medically discharged in 2010, after 12 years of service. This put him in the military around 1998, four years after the 1994 ban.

If he obtained them while he was in the military, then he obtained them while they were illegal. AND it would appear that they were stamped as military property, which, while not 100% condeming, certainly throws doubt into the equation as to how he came to legitimately possess military property.


Let's get it clear here that I don't agree with the 1994 AWB or any limitations on magazine capacity. However, in this circumstance, I'm finding it hard to believe that this guy is totally innocent here.

I'd certainly like some more information, certainly some clarification, on this matter.

.

Who in the military didn't come home when a mag or two?
.

usmarine0352_2005 said:

.

Who in the military didn't come home when a mag or two?
.

Click to expand...

Soooo...you're asking who out there in the military did not steal military weapons equipment?

The "Restricted-Military Use Only" stamp is really a moot point. After the Clinton era AWB expired these mags became legal on the civilian market in most states. If he kept some military property when he left service the federal government has juristiction, not the state of New York.

This case is a really good opportunity to get standard capacity mag bans overturned by the courts. If you're complaining that this guy is getting railroaded by a draconian law (I personally believe that he is), donate to his legal defense fund: http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc The fund saw a flurry of donations when this first made the news, but now has slowed to a trickle and stagnated at about $35k. Encourage the Second Amendment Foundation to get involved with the court action. I don't think that a letter campaign will hurt anything, but after the latest NY gun ban I really don't think most of the people in NYS government can be expected to listen.

$.02

My recollection is the NYS still refers to the post-94 stamps to determine legal/illegal status under the state AWB (well, prior to their current legislative tomfoolery). Whole thing makes me wonder if you could be charged under state statutes about magazines if you were still active duty but law enforcement found you in possession of non-USGI magazines while off post (i.e. the Pmags for sale in PX's in theater you may have brought home from down range).

There are several states on my list that I would have moved away from a long time ago. Soon there may not many left I could stay in. This is getting...bad...sad...scary...UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Fair to say I'm getting worried.

Mark