TV News Story About Nathan Haddad (NY Resident Charged With Possessing Magazines)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The charge would likely still cause him to lose his clearance, and his job. Trying to sell them in the open like that wasn't the smartest idea though.

Hopefully the DA exercises a little bit of common sense on this one and declines to press charges.
 
The fact that we live in a country where a DA has the ability to even decide whether or not to charge someone for such an utterly idiotic "crime" is pathetic.

Of course, this is exactly what they want.

Last Tuesday I had a chance to attend a debate where Rhonda Fields (author of the Colorado magazine ban) and John Morse (Democrat state senate president) were present.

After the debate, I approached both of them, and asked them the following:

"I'm a competitive shooter. I attend shooting matches both in Colorado, and in other states, including New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. At these shooting matches, it's sometimes common for competitors to share equipment like magazines. As I understand it, violating the proposed magazine ban would be a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1,000 or a prison sentence of up to a year. Now, let's say that I'd borrowed a magazine, but forgotten about it in my range bag, and was found to be in possession of it. Would you honestly be ok with throwing me in prison for up to a year as punishment for a simple accident?"

Rhonda Fields exact words were "Yes, I would be fine with that."

John Morse's exact words were "You're obviously pretty smart, and you're engaged enough to know that this is an illegal act. So, given that you should know better, I would be perfectly ok with locking you up."

Note that I'm a gainfully employed, property-owning tax-payer with a mortgage and family. With absolutely no compunction or thought given to the consequences of such a prison sentence, both of these people were utterly ok with destroying my life for an accidental violation of a thoroughly idiotic law.

These people are neither rational or reasonable, and they must be vehemently opposed at every opportunity. So far as I'm concerned, this is no longer a "national discussion" but a fight for survival.
 
Justin: please tell me your response to their idiocy involved "colorful language" and "suggestions for fornication actions that are still illegal in certain parts of the country." people like that deserve to be made fools of the most public of manners possible.
 
SY: I've been trying to open people's eyes around here, but it's a tough sell. even the ones who honestly couldn't give a damn about firearms restrictions (in any capacity) can't see the storm on the horizon. my only regret, is I didn't see it coming sooner and invested more in protection. I came late to the party simply because I never had any "exposure" to firearms for the first 35 years of my life. I can't even tell you what woke me up and caused me to purchase my first. I just wish I'd woken up sooner, or bought more.
 
Justin: please tell me your response to their idiocy involved "colorful language" and "suggestions for fornication actions that are still illegal in certain parts of the country." people like that deserve to be made fools of the most public of manners possible.

In all honesty, I was dumbstruck.

I didn't know what to respond with, as I had expected elected representatives to be much more reasonable.

Clearly the gloves have been off for one side of this fight.
 
The point of these laws was never to catch criminals, but rather to make criminals out of *US* for political reasons. So his prosecution makes perfect sense. That is in fact the whole point of the law. They want us all dead or in prison, truly.
 
It all goes back to cultural and political polarization. The country is dividing into "tribes." (Reminds me of the history of the 1850's.) Guns are just the symptom, not the cause, of this. The root cause is the contempt in which each side holds the other. You can't hold "rational" discussions in such an atmosphere.
 
+1. Guns are currently the polarizing issue issue and maybe a signifier of those tribal identities, but they are embedded in two dramatically different worldviews concerning the relationship between the state and the individual. Comparisons to the 1850s and the topic of slavery seem extremely apt, as slavery may have been the proximal cause of armies marching and all that, but there really was the questions of the relationship between the federal and state governments that some apologist and revisionist histories highlight.
 
All murderers and child predators should be immediately paroled to make room in our penitentiaries to house those law-abiding citizens who would dare own a 30-round magazine or speak ill of the current administration.
 
Why incarcerate, when you can just disarm and disenfranchise with a felony conviction? Pretty much removes anyone who cares to obey the law from the equation as either an ordinary or extraordinary threat to the powers that be.
 
Thanks for posting your exchange, Justin. That's just some chilling stuff, right there.

Now we know. (eyes narrow into little Clint Eastwood slits)
 
He's busily lacing up the boots that 1984's O'Brien has given him.

I'm rather more afraid that we are seeing A Brave New World--there seem to be one too many self-selected Alphas out there perfectly happy to see the hoi polloi sell dosed in soma.

But, I also fear I'm already too fluent in doublegood rightthink newspeak, too.
 
I posed that shared magazine question in my letters to my reps and senators. The lockstep dems for the most part don't care. They ARE worried about the next election cycle and the Magpul $$ but as far as actually caring if you or I is suddenly branded a criminal?

Doesn't bug them one bit.
 
So does anyone know if under current (before or after the current Cuomo insanity) if the "reserved for LE or military use" issue would have provided immunity to this guy if he was still in the military (i.e. does it mean serving members of the .mil can possess privately purchased magazines that violate the NYS AWB, or does that protection only extend to magazines issued to a servicemember)?

Because, given Cuomo's recent legislation to outlaw everyone, including law enforcement, use of post-1911 capacity magazines, I suspect that a thorough search of Watertown, NY and its environs might result in most of the 10th Mountain Division living off post being charged with felony offenses relating to non-USGI magazines . . .
 
I get on the wrong side of some people for some of my screwy political ideas, but Justin's experiences here illustrate a point.
I do not want to be governed by power-mad idiots who would imprison a law-abiding citizen over something like that.
 
John Morse's exact words were "You're obviously pretty smart, and you're engaged enough to know that this is an illegal act. So, given that you should know better, I would be perfectly ok with locking you up."

A cop should follow him on the road, and every time he exceeds the speed limit by even a few miles an hour, he or she should issue a ticket, stating, "you're obviously pretty smart, and you're engaged enough to know the laws of the road. So given that you should know better, here is a ticket bearing a fine and points on your license. Have a nice day."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top