Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Here is an old New York case from 1987 - People v. Marrero.
Marrero was a federal corrections officer in Connecticut. He consulted his criminal justice professor and several gun shops about whether it was legal for him to carry a firearm in New York. They all told him yes. Marrero being wise enough to realize who would go to jail, looked up the statute anyway. The relevant New York statute exempted:
Under that section, a peace officer was defined to include:
Based on this, Marrero decided to carry his .380 automatic with him while visiting a New York social club. We don't how it happened exactly; but Marrero managed to get himself arrested and charged for criminal possession of a weapon.
Marrero made a motion to dismiss the charges based on the law and his status as a Federal correctional officer. The trial court agreed with him and dismissed the indictment.
Not content with having only temporarily inconvenienced this menace this menace to public safety, the prosecutor spent tax payer money to appeal the dismissal. The New York appeals court looked at the statute and written and said "sorry, regardless of what you think it says that only applies to NY corrections officers" and remanded the case for a new trial.
At the new trial Marrero claimed mistake of law, pointing out that while he might have been mistaken, it was an easy mistake to make given the language. Marrero was told that his mistaken interpretation of the law was no excuse and was convicted of 3rd degree criminal possession of a weapon. The conviction was upheld by the higher courts as well.
This is an old case but it illustrates well why citizen and law enforcement gun owners alike must hang together or hang separately. The bureaucracy that wants to see citizens disarmed isn't all that keen on having too many public servants armed either.
Marrero was a federal corrections officer in Connecticut. He consulted his criminal justice professor and several gun shops about whether it was legal for him to carry a firearm in New York. They all told him yes. Marrero being wise enough to realize who would go to jail, looked up the statute anyway. The relevant New York statute exempted:
Under that section, a peace officer was defined to include:
Based on this, Marrero decided to carry his .380 automatic with him while visiting a New York social club. We don't how it happened exactly; but Marrero managed to get himself arrested and charged for criminal possession of a weapon.
Marrero made a motion to dismiss the charges based on the law and his status as a Federal correctional officer. The trial court agreed with him and dismissed the indictment.
Not content with having only temporarily inconvenienced this menace this menace to public safety, the prosecutor spent tax payer money to appeal the dismissal. The New York appeals court looked at the statute and written and said "sorry, regardless of what you think it says that only applies to NY corrections officers" and remanded the case for a new trial.
At the new trial Marrero claimed mistake of law, pointing out that while he might have been mistaken, it was an easy mistake to make given the language. Marrero was told that his mistaken interpretation of the law was no excuse and was convicted of 3rd degree criminal possession of a weapon. The conviction was upheld by the higher courts as well.
This is an old case but it illustrates well why citizen and law enforcement gun owners alike must hang together or hang separately. The bureaucracy that wants to see citizens disarmed isn't all that keen on having too many public servants armed either.
