SAFE act takes it's first gun off the street

[mwrguy]

Have fun in jail, dickhead.

NEW LEBANON, N.Y. - A man has been charged under the New York State SAFE Act after troopers found he had a handgun in his car with the loaded magazine containing nine rounds of ammunition, rather than the limit of seven rounds.

State Police issued a traffic stop for 31-year-old Gregory Dean of Hopewell Junction on Route 22 in New Lebanon Sunday night for an inadequate license plate lamp.

While interviewing Dean, troopers observed a handgun on the front passenger seat that was partially covered by a sweatshirt. Investigation revealed a Smith and Wesson semi-automatic .40 caliber handgun was legally possessed, but police say it was revealed that the loaded magazine contained nine rounds of ammunition, rather than the limit of seven rounds, as required by the SAFE Act.

[link:http://www.news10.com/story/22236238/troopers-make-safe-act-arrest-in-new-lebanon|

[kudzu22]

1. Odds are the arresting officer also had an illegally loaded handgun

Since NY SAFE didn't exempt police.

[gejohnston]

2. and that makes the streets safer how?

How was it "on the street"? I never understood that expression, since that would mean his cell phone and keys were also "on the street". The phrase sounds like a cop slang term now used as a weasel word or using slanting language for propaganda.
Since it was legally possessed, we know that the possessor doesn't fit the demographic of the typical murder or robber.
BTW, the officer was likely committing the same crime because the SAFE Act does not exempt on duty police.

http://firearms.hoffmang.com.s3.amazonaws.com/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/28homicide.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=dCdaaJ-0gPQC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=90+percent+of+murderers+have+criminal+records&source=bl&ots=Cv0fbu9O9j&sig=Faf4M4YJDKczkTug37z1N48oNjk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0eRUfaEDYrM9QTn-4GQAw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=90%20percent%20of%20murderers%20have%20criminal%20records&f=false

You are celebrating someone going to jail for a victimless crime that is on the level having ornate smoking pipe. That is something authoritarians do, not liberals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. IMHO...

...a rather appropriate victory for the... umm... anti-rights crowd.

[Starboard Tack]

113. What rights do you refer to? The right to break the law?

The right to bear arms does not include the right to have more than a 7 round clip in NY. No rights were violated, but a law was broken.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. A complicated question

Rights stand apart from the law. Rights, being attributes of humanity, are innate. They do not require the acknowledgement or assent of government. It should be among the most important roles of government to secure and protect the rights of the people.

IMHO, the limit of 7 was chosen and legislated in a capricious fashion and compromises the right to self-defense. Yes a law was broken.


Hope your weather is good. Keep your batteries charged.

[Starboard Tack]

116. True, rights stand apart from the law.

I understand why some may find the limit of 7 rounds per clip to be capricious. It is definitely reactionary, but most laws are. Personally, I consider it reasonable, especially when there is no restriction as to how many guns or clips one may own,or in this case, carry in the vehicle. Laws are made to establish standards that most consider reasonable. I'm sure this case will be a test for the courts about reasonable standards versus an individual's perception of personal rights.
Staying dry in DC at present, on a long road trip, while engine get's an overhaul and new batteries are installed, along with long awaited wind generator. Yeah!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

118. Best of luck traveling

If you're in DC, please know to avoid the Wilson bridge section of the beltway as it is a drawbridge (which often opens) and carries the Southeast beltway over the river. Traffic can backup for miles if open during rush hour. (BTW Friday evening rush hour starts about 1:30 PM and goes til 7 or 8 depending on problems.)

As JFK said, DC is city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency.
Cheers

[Starboard Tack]

127. Thanks. I like the JFK quote. So true.

But I'm having a fun time in this strange city, where I have quite a few friends and family. Took the Metro yesterday for the first time and went exploring on my own. So different to NYC subway or London's Tube or Paris Metro. Felt like I'd dropped into some sci-fi world. Is this a subway or a nuclear bomb shelter?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

130. ...subway or a nuclear bomb shelter...

Considering some DC mentalities, I'd say, yes.

If you like that feel and are looking for some 'off-the-beaten' side trips, consider the Greenbrier, about a 4 hour drive from DC.

http://www.greenbrier.com/Activities/The-Bunker.aspx

[Starboard Tack]

132. Been there, years ago. Interesting place. Spent a lot of time in WV.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

133. Closer to DC...

...is the Workhouse Prison Museum at Lorton.
http://workhousemuseums.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=8

Lorton was a key point of interest in Women's Suffrage.


Or hey, stop at the NRA in Fairfax. I hear they have a museum.

[premium]

122. And we're so much safer now, right?

The cops took down a very dangerous criminal, he had 9 rounds instead of 7 rounds, stop the presses, a desperado was apprehended and NYS is now that much safer.

[Starboard Tack]

123. No, he was just breaking the law. Now he knows better.

Probably fixed his tail light too. Don't try to make a bigger deal of it than it was.
IMO it's a good law, just as NO TEXTING while driving is, and hands free cellphone use. Makes us all a little safer.

[mwrguy]

5. It was literally on the street

In the possession of a criminal while he was driving down the street.

Now it is the hands of the police, and will probably be melted down for scrap. This is one gun that we can be certain will never murder anyone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. No weapon has or ever will murder *anyone*, as they are inanimate objects.

Michael Moorcock and Blue Oyster Cult notwithstanding.
Would you have us believe rounds 8 and 9 somehow made that gun more dangerous?

[gejohnston]

12. it was not in

The hands of a criminal. He had a license and it was registered

[mwrguy]

14. He was breaking the law with a firearm, therefore he's a criminal with a gun.

So he only broke one law instead of three, he's still guilty of a firearms violation.

[gejohnston]

28. do you have a stash?

If so, you are a criminal. A felon under federal law and many states. His was only a misdemeanor.

[gejohnston]

51. So, should Ceasefire Oregon

and Barbara Luisi be in federal prison for violating the 1968 Gun Control Act?

Typical of those who were bringing in guns was Vancouver, Wash., resident Barbara Luisi, who said her gun collector ex-husband had given her a rifle 20 years ago and it had been in her garage for years.

http://portlandtribune.com/component/content/article?id=14539

[mwrguy]

52. She turned it in to the cops, and nothing in that article says it was illegal anyway n/t

[gejohnston]

57. I was under the impression that she gave it to Ceasefire

She was a Washington resident. She gave it to Ceasefire Oregon in Portland to a Oregon resident. Interstate transfer between non FFL holders violates the 1968 Gun Control Act. Any violation of the Gun Control Act is punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. I think if someone is going to advocate for stricter gun laws, they should be the first ones to be familiar with current federal gun control laws.

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

[clffrdjk]

55. And what of the police officer?

They without a doubt had more than 7 rounds in the mag and were not exempted from the safe act what of him/her?

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Yes. When idiotic, pointless laws are enacted...

...it inevitably creates more "criminals," as some people who were previously law-abiding elect not to comply with them. This is one of those laws that thousands and thousands of people will ignore...but which is not enough of an egregious provocation that public civil disobedience is likely. It'll just be quietly ignored and the occasional unlucky sap will get busted.

[beevul]

71. Whats your position on this then?

I'll understand if you remain silent rather than try to have it both ways.

[rdharma]

18. And was violating the law..........

Responsible gun owner ..... who became irresponsible. Happens a lot!

[Straw Man]

65. Irresponsible?

Responsible gun owner ..... who became irresponsible. Happens a lot!

You're a gun owner. Have you ever loaded more than seven rounds? If so, do you feel that you acted irresponsibly? Will you avoid doing so in the future? Do you think that it should be illegal to load more than seven rounds? If so, why?

[rdharma]

72. Why not load more than 7 rounds in the magazine? Well, maybe because it's illegal in NY.......

This gun hugger intentionally chose to ignore the law....... and got caught.

I'd say that's IRRESPONSIBLE....... and he got what he deserved........period.

[Straw Man]

73. That's not what I asked you.

I asked you if you think this law is necessary, and why. You typically chose not to answer.

[rdharma]

75. And I'm asking you.......

...... do you think you have the right to ignore a law because you don't agree with it?

[Straw Man]

79. And I am answering you.

...... do you think you have the right to ignore a law because you don't agree with it?

No. I don't.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine.

[rdharma]

80. What was your question again?

Just kidding.

No, I don't think the 7 rd. mag law makes much sense.

But I do think universal background checks and registration do.

[Jenoch]

81. He/she never actually answers questions.

He/she either does not even attempt to answer, or chooses to respond with a question. I had a ridiculous exchage with him/her the other day where he/she refused to answer a simple question. A question even more simple than yours.

[rdharma]

83. A simple question?

Ah, yes! A very "simple" question!

[Jenoch]

84. Sure it was, and you still have not answered it.

[rdharma]

85. Depends on what the definition of "simple" is.

[Jenoch]

90. It was a simple, straight-forward question under ANY definition.

[rdharma]

91. If you say so.

[sarisataka]

7. Jail is better

Than summary execution. I have seen it put forth quite recently that some on du would not object to that in this case.

Makes me wonder...

[wercal]

4. Holy Unwarranted Search Batman

By what authority did the police take the gun, unload the magazine, and count the rounds in the magazine?

The stop was for a light bulb.

The gun was legally carried.

So how come the police get to 'investigate' the gun?

Does this mean that no matter what you are stopped for, the police can fish around you and your car looking for violations?

[sarisataka]

6. Perfectly legal

If asked "May I search your car" and he said yes.

Another possibility is if the gun was in plain view the police may have the right to inspect it. I am not sure if NY law would permit that.

[wercal]

9. The story said the gun was in plain view

....but why on earth would the police have the right to 'inspect' it.

If I'm walking down the street, my backpack is in plain view...but not open for inspection.

Alot of women's purses are in plain view in their car...but the police can't just start rummaging through them, for a burnt out light bulb violation.

So I don't necessarily agree with 'perfectly legal' one bit. A burned out light bulb should not be an invitation for a fishing expedition.

[sarisataka]

11. They would be able to inspect

if the law allows. Here in Mn I must tell an officer that I am armed and show my permit, if asked. Other states you have to do so without being asked.

I assume NY allows inspection of a visible firearm to check compliance with the SAFE Act. If not, this will get tossed in 15 seconds in court.

[wercal]

13. Think about this statement

"I assume NY allows inspection of a visible firearm to check compliance with the SAFE Act".

It presumes that the passage of a law (SAFE act) supercedes all prior rulings on searches and probable cause. How is that possible?

Now, the only gun related charge was the round count...so I can only assume that he possessed and transported the gun legally. So why the further 'investigation' of the gun? Why perform a search and take out the magazine?

Or maybe a better question (which apparently gets a shorter answer) what can't the police do, when they pull you over.

btw - the gun was in plain sight...so there is nothing to discuss about what states require disclosure, etc. But so what. If its legal, why do the police get to take out the magazine and start counting? How is this different from doing a roadside body cavity search?

[sarisataka]

21. I don't write the laws

nor argue them in court. I merely am thinking of a plausible explanation for searching. -

I do not know if states that allow unopened alcohol in a vehicle give the police the right to examine the bottles to see if they are open or not. It would be a similar principle; whether right or wrong would require a challenge on 4th Amendment grounds.

Or he gave permission which would make everything moot.

[rdharma]

15. Plain sight!

The "plain sight" rule recognizes that no citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to unconcealed items within a vehicle in police custody.[State v. Gowans, 500 P.2d 641 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972)]

[wercal]

17. So What!

The rounds weren't in Plain Sight!

A woman's purse is in Plain Sight! but the police can't rummage through it with no probable cause, right?

The lid to my trunk is in Plain Sight! but they don't get to go in there either, without cause.

Hell - the door to my car ashtray is in Plain Sight!, as is the door to the glove compartment. Guess what - no probably cause, no search.

What do you think they were searching for, when they took the magazine out of this gun? Extra light bulbs for the guys plate light? Did they 'smell drugs' in the gun? What caused them to search the gun?

I guess what I am trying to say: The gun was in Plain Sight! but the rounds most certainly weren't in Plain Sight!.

[rdharma]

19. There's a lot of them here today!

And they're so easy to spot!

I believe the officers had the legal right to "secure and inspect" the pistol while they checked the driver's concealed weapons permit.

Oops! There goes his gun hugger "authorization card"!

[wercal]

20. There's a lot of them heere today!

By them I assume you mean people with a libertarian bent, who don't partiucularly approve of unfettered police power, no matter whether or not is satisfies my particular ends justifying the means cause of the day?

Instead of implying I'm one of 'them', why don't you cogently explain to me how Plain Sight! applies to pulling the magazine out of a pistol and counting the rounds.

And, once you are done with that, please explain to me how this Plain Sight!...and dig deeper argument a) is somehow different than other case law that prevents it b) won't lead down a slippery slope that allows the police to search whatever the hell they want, anytime.

I bet you won't.

I bet you insult me instead.

ps...I edited my post, to include your edited post:

"I believe the officers had the legal right to "secure and inspect" the pistol while they checked the driver's concealed weapons permit.

Oops! There goes his gun hugger "authorization card"!

Why did you put forth an argument (well, opinion)...and retract it just to leave the insult?

[NYC_SKP]

22. Insults are what they use when they have no argument. No worries.

There aren't too many.

I can count them on the toes of one foot.

[rdharma]

23. "explain to me how Plain Sight! applies to pulling the magazine out of a pistol"

Well, certainly!

When you secure a weapon, the first thing you do is clear the weapon ......... RIGHT?!!!

Then you check that the concealed permit holder is carrying it legally........RIGHT?!!!!

Voilà!

[wercal]

30. Nope

1) Clearing a weapon doesn't involve counting the ammunition.

2) Nowhere in the story does it mention that this guy had a concealed cary permit - so any speculation about what the police are allowed to do to concealed carry holders in NY is unwarranted.

I'm going to help you out here. The police are going to say they dropped the magazine 'for their safety'...and then they accidentally on purpose noticed how many rounds were in the magazine.

Here is a quote from another story:

"When troopers made the weapon safe, it was revealed that the loaded magazine contained nine rounds of ammunition;"

http://www.registerstar.com/news/article_77675088-bc02-11e2-a7cb-001a4bcf887a.html

Absolutely nothing to do with inspecting the gun for some sort of compliance with concealed carry rules. Just a B.S. 'safety' excuse.

Some will accept that explanation.

I call B.S....because that's exactly what it is: B.S.

I've known alot of cops. Some are good, some are bad...but the one thing I know with 100% certaintly - they are not all good. There will always be bad apples...so why on earth would you accept that type of BS argument, even if you agree with the outcome? What happens when the bad apple cop starts to use the 'safety' argument.

Am I exagerrating? In my town (Topeka), a man was having a medical problem, and sitting catatonic in his vehicle in a private parking lot where he worked. He was unresponsive, but had given up his keys, so there was no danger of him driving. The sheriff deputy came out...and she proceeded to tase him, pin him to the ground, cuff him, and call the coroner....because she had killed him.

The sheriff went on the radio a few days later. When questioned about the deputy's performance, he screamed into the microphone "she was trying to HELP him".

Another BS excuse.

I shy away from accepting these BS excuses, because the next time, I might be on the recieving end of a warrantless search, or the taser gun.

But go right ahead and ridicule me (and imply I'm a troll) for not going along to get along.

(BTW, this has nothing to do with Plain Sight!, as the visibility of the gun did not lead to the suspicion of contraband or criminal activity. That's why they have to use the B.S. 'safety' argument. So Plain Sight! is dumb and should be left out of it for now. (I suspect you have realized that, which is why I am the only one who keeps bringing up Plain Sight!)

[rdharma]

33. "Clearing a weapon doesn't involve counting the ammunition" BUT......

.....verification of a concealed weapon's legality is!

You ain't in Kansas, Dorothy!

[wercal]

37. I'm going to type s-l-o-w-l-y this time

1) The weapon wasn't concealed

2) Nothing in the story indicates that this person had a concealed carry permit

3) You are only speculating that NY has a law which allows police to search weapons, because concealed carry holders have somehow waived their rights against illegal searches...but its pure speculation, and left unproven, its pure fantasy.

How on earth have you gone from Plain Sight! to Concealed! in one thread? Stay on task.

[rdharma]

38. Im going to type even S....L...O....W....E.....R...

You can't drive around NY with a loaded gatt on your passenger seat without a CCW!

I guess you missed the comment about Dorothy in Kansas!

[wercal]

41. Hmmm

No I didn't miss the point about Dorothy in Kansas...frankly even though I am not a native Kansan, I always get a chuckle at the infantile habit people have of condensing the entire state into one movie....and generally ignore it. BTW, if you care to be educated, even in Kansas (in most jurisdictions) I can't carry an unlocked pistol in the car either.

But on to your theory.

Let me get this straight. You don't know that this guy had a concealed permit...but are assuming he did, because he couldn;t possibly carry it otherwise. Ok, fair enough...you've got a 50% chance of being right...the story doesn't mention a permit either way.

Then you assume, without actually looking it up, that cc holders in NY have voluntarily subjected themselves to a warrantless search, whenever the hell the police see them doing...well...carrying a pistol. So they could just walk up to any person who carries, and demand to do an inspection. Ok...I'm gonna have to tell you that the odds on that are a little lower than 50%.

But this is all red herring stuff.

As I understand it, you are ok with warrantless searches of people you don't agree with (gun owners), because it suits your own agenda. I would pay money to see the look on your face when the search doesn't suit your agenda.

[rdharma]

45. A gun hugger carrying a loaded gatt with illegal 9 rounds was arrested.........

when cops found it rolling around on his front passenger seat during a traffic stop.... that's enough for me.

If you want to TRY defend some paranoid irresponsible a-hole's right to violate the law. Carry on!

I just see him as another dumb shit who shouldn't be carrying!

[wercal]

47. I repeat

I'm sorry the constitution gets in the way of your agenda.

You have used the 'dismissive argument'.

One more point of education before I hit the road:

That's not a good argument.

[HolyMoley]

35. Any officer has a legal right to secure a firearm from a CCW holder.

Even if there was or wasn't a consent to search, some states have a duty to inform law (that the person being stopped, questioned is armed and has a CCW permit), at which point the officer can take possession of said firearm without consent or permission.

SOP would dictate the officer engage the safety, drop the magazine, clear the chamber, and lock the slide to the rear.

Magazines for semi-auto pistols typically have "witness holes" or some other means of visually determining how many rounds are in magazine without having to unload it.

For the record, I believe that the NY law (and all mag capacity laws), is bullshit and over bearing, but the guy fucked up and got caught.

[rdharma]

36. Good point!

Although I'm not familiar with the CCW laws in ALL states, it's a common requirement to identify yourself as a CCW carrier if you have a weapon with you.

"For the record, I believe that the NY law (and all mag capacity laws), is bullshit and over bearing, but the guy fucked up and got caught. "

I agree with you on the above statement.

[wercal]

39. We don't know about duty to inform

because

1) The gun was in plain sight

2) Nothing in the story indicates that he had a concealed carry permit anyway.

And I understand they cleared the weapon for their safety...but since when does that involve counting rounds? Shouldn't the officer be looking in the chamber, and not at the magazine?

Keep in mind, this man was stopped at night - the whole reason for the stop was his plate light was out. Now let me ask you, if you were standing on the side of the road at night, and I handed you a weapon to clear. Would noticing the rounds through the witness holes be 'incidental' to the clearing of the weapon...or would you have to get your flashlight out and examine the magazine - which last I checked wasn't at all part of clearing the weapon.

Sure the guy screwed up...and he didn't have a license either.

But I say the police also screwed up, and went beyond their authority, when they used clearing the weapon as a BS excuse to investigate his round count.

[rdharma]

40. Shouldn't they have allowed him to violate the law?

Is that what your saying? Sure sounds like it!

[wercal]

42. This really isn't sinking in is it

They would never had even had the opportunity to make a determination on what his was or was not allowed to do....if it weren't for the illegal search in the first place.

I don't think you understand that I don't care too much about the 7 round limit (although it is a fairly foolish law)....but what I do care about is the police using the new law as license to violate constitutional rights.

I have another prediction. The police (and prosecutor) will be smart enough to figure this out, and they will revise the charges. I seriously doubt this guy has a NY concealed carry...and they will in fact charge him with illegally having it in his front seat. Open carry is fine...but not within arm's reach in a vehicle. They will use this back-dated charge to justify the further search of the gun, and the discovery of the violation of the SAFE law.

Just keep this in mind the next time you get pulled over for a burnt out license plate light. Do you really believe the police care about that light? They don't. They are on a fishing expedition - and you've been targeted.

Full disclosure - I've been pulled over twice for the license plate light. The first time, the officer demanded that I open my trunk. I was young and obedient and I complied. All he found were the Christmas presents we were taking home (by 'we' I mean my whole family that was in the car during this police infringement). I finally grew a spine and refused to open/unwrap the presents when he demanded that. I don't know what keyed him to me...or what the hell he thought I had in my trunk, but I didn't appreciate the fishing expedition, or the 30 minute wait while he consulted with other officers about what he could do to detain me or search further. He let me go.

Second time, I left a bar...got 25 yards down the road, and there he was. Obviously he was interested in getting a dui arrest. Well, he didn't get one with me, and he threw me back into the water, and went on his way looking for better fish.

So what I am saying is something that should be fairly fucking obvious. Ninety percent of crime in this country goes undetected and unprosecuted, because we have constitutional protections that prevent the police from making random searches of people's property...and that is exactly how it should be.

I'm sorry if the constitution bothers you.

[Robb]

43. Also IIRC Smith & Wesson engraves numbers next to the witness holes.

It would take zero effort to notice a 10-round magazine with a big "10" engraved on it, and very little more effort to see visually confirm a round behind that hole.

[wercal]

46. What does 10 matter

In NY, you are still allowed to have a 10 round magazine, if it manufactured before the law. So noticing that its a 10 round magazine should be no cause for alarm, and no indication that anything criminal was going on.

And the round wasn't behind that '10' hole...there were 9 rounds counted. So it was either a magazine with a hole for each round, or the police took the rounds out.

And how easy would it have really been to see the round behind the witness hole, or even read the stamped numbers? It was night (remember the pretense for the stop was a burnt out license plate light). And, if the police were clearing the weapon, the eyes should be looking down the chamber. I think, on the side of the road at night, it would be very difficult to see the rounds and stamps, without using a flashlight and very deliberately inspecting the magazine, actually.

[sarisataka]

48. That would depend on the magazine

Glocks are very user-friendly and have a hole for each round nicely numbered. It is easy to tell the exact number of rounds at a glance

Other types may be similar or only have windows for when you are getting low. Unloading the magazine is the only way to get an exact count

[wercal]

49. In the dark?

[sarisataka]

50. The officer will be using a light

to check ID. Dropping a mag like the glock and passing the light over it would be more than enough to see the rounds. It is not unlikely the officer would have a glock so would be very familiar with it.

Now if it was one that only had a window every 5th round, we have a very different situation. The exact wording of NY law would be critical to determine if unloading the magazine is reasonable.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Not true.

I've had a police officer confiscate my weapon during a traffic stop. They placed it on the hood without doing anything to it.

You shouldn't be fucking around with someone else's pistol of who knows what manufacture/origin without a clearing barrel in front of it.

[Eleanors38]

76. "Plain sight?" You mean cartridges spilling onto floorboards? Please clarify.

[wercal]

100. He can't and won't

Later in the thread he completely abandons his plain sight argument and presumes that the police have permission to empty the magazine of any concealed carry holder....even though the story doesn't mention that he has a carry permit, and even though it is ridiculous to think that a carry permit subjects you to random searches.

In short, he's all over the map...and his dislike of guns trumps all logic or 4th Ammendment protections.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Was the interior of the magazine in plain sight?

I've always wanted an inside-out gun.

[geek_sabre]

87. This is what I find most troubling. n/t.

[Megalo_Man]

8. This is why you keep your mouth shut.

Don't offer any information than necessary when pulled over or stopped by police, ever.

IF THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO SEARCH YOU, THEY DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION!

[rdharma]

16. Welcome, Megalo_Man

And thanks for the "helpful" information to avoid arrest when violating the law!

[sarisataka]

24. That refers to a different text...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

or do we not like that Amendment either...

[rdharma]

25. Fourth doesn't come in to play here.....

.... when you got a loaded gatt in plain sight on the passengers seat in NY in a traffic stop!

[sarisataka]

26. Um... that is the Fifth...

that says you do not have to talk to the police

[rdharma]

27. No. The fourth, my friend.

Illegal search and fishing expeditions........

[sarisataka]

29. I was referring to post 8

Don't offer any information than necessary when pulled over or stopped by police, ever

Unless mandated by law, you do not have tell the nice officer anything. If it is an incriminating question you do not have to answer at all.

The fourth would come into play if the officer said "May I search your car?" You can say no. It may not prevent him from searching anyway, depending on the circumstances, but you are not required to give permission to the search.

If the law says police may examine the magazine of a firearm in view, well then you are SOL if you can't count too good. Can such search be challenged? Don't know. Someone, maybe this guy, will 'volunteer' to be the test case.

I don't have the time or money to be a court-rat so I try to stay on good terms with Officer Friendly.

[rdharma]

31. And you would be wrong.

The Fifth doesn't kick in until you are actually charged with a crime. Before that...... if you choose to be silent......you'll be considered an a-hole and will get more scrutiny!

[sarisataka]

32. You may want to read this

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

384 U.S. 436

Miranda v. Arizona

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html

if you are detained at a traffic stop you most assuredly are in police custody, however temporary and informal it may be.

[rdharma]

34. Do I also have to explain the difference between "custody" and "arrest"?

Really?!!!!

May I leave now?

[sarisataka]

44. I think we are talking past each other

I agree something in plain sight gives ras to search. But if a person has hidden contraband they are not obligated to admit that even if directly asked. A positive answer would give ras and therefore be self incriminating.

I also realize people will simply lie, even about items in sight... No one actually does drugs, they are just holding them for someone else.

[Straw Man]

53. Here's the sad and stupid thing.

Four months ago, he could have legally had ten rounds in his magazine. There would have been no charge for the handgun. Was he a danger to society then? Is he a danger to society now? Would he be more dangerous to society if he had in his possession ten loaded magazines for his pistol, each one with seven rounds in it? That would be perfectly legal.

Seven rounds in magazine = solid, responsible citizen. Nine rounds in magazine = dangerous criminal.

Anyone who can't see what Mickey-Mouse bullshit this is is an idiot.

[mwrguy]

54. "Four months ago, he could have legally had ten rounds in his magazine."

100 years ago he could have legally owned an unregistered machine gun.

100 200 years ago he could have legally owned a slave.

Times change.

[Straw Man]

56. History lessons.

100 years ago he could have legally owned a slave.

In 1913? Not in this country, he couldn't.

Are you honestly making a moral equivalence between two extra rounds in a pistol and the enslavement of human beings? Please tell me that you aren't.

[mwrguy]

59. My mistake, meant to type 200 for that one.

And yes, 100 years from now we will look back at the proliferation of deadly weapons similar to how we looked at slavery.

[Straw Man]

60. Proliferation of deadly weapons?

And yes, 100 years from now we will look back at the proliferation of deadly weapons similar to how we looked at slavery.

So a pistol with seven rounds in it isn't a deadly weapon but one with nine rounds is?

[mwrguy]

61. Fair enough, even seven rounds is bad.

But we've got to start somewhere.

Someday it will be one round.

[Straw Man]

63. Thank you ...

Fair enough, even seven rounds is bad.

But we've got to start somewhere.

Someday it will be one round.

... for affirming the existence of the slippery slope. I've been told by some here that it's a paranoid delusion and that "nobody wants to take your guns away." I guess they're either mistaken or lying, huh?

[Eleanors38]

77. Saw that too. Must be a BansAlot TalkingPoint™.

[Starboard Tack]

120. I think 1 round is fine for carrying around.

[Straw Man]

121. C'mon now.

I think 1 round is fine for carrying around.

You think no rounds is fine for carrying around. Let's have a little honesty, shall we?

[Starboard Tack]

124. No, actually I think one is not a bad idea. Believe it or not.

I've thought a lot about this issue, and one should be sufficient in most situations to provide a little sense of security. Think about it.
I sometimes find myself in situations where I think it might be smart to have that little extra backup, just in case. And one round should be plenty.

[gejohnston]

125. all due respect but,

I think you thought poorly.

[Straw Man]

126. With all due respect ...

I've thought a lot about this issue, and one should be sufficient in most situations to provide a little sense of security. Think about it.
I sometimes find myself in situations where I think it might be smart to have that little extra backup, just in case. And one round should be plenty.

... this is a dangerously misinformed opinion, especially re handguns. "Sufficient in most situations"? What situations are those? Even if you hit your target, the fabled "one shot stop" is exactly that: fabled. People can absorb multiple hits with handgun rounds and still be on their feet, still attacking.

The conventional wisdom about firearm capacity is that no one using a firearm in extremis has ever said, "Gee, I wish I didn't have so many bullets in my gun."

[Starboard Tack]

128. I seriously doubt I could ever shoot someone.

But I could point the gun at them and probably pull the trigger if I felt I had no other option. If that didn't work, then I probably shouldn't have had the gun to begin with. But that's just me. OTOH, I can't imagine anyone needing more than 7 rounds in a SD situation. Seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Straw Man]

129. Disaster.

But I could point the gun at them and probably pull the trigger if I felt I had no other option. If that didn't work, then I probably shouldn't have had the gun to begin with. But that's just me. OTOH, I can't imagine anyone needing more than 7 rounds in a SD situation. Seems like a recipe for disaster.

If you couldn't shoot someone, even to save your own skin, then you shouldn't have a gun. I think we all agree on that. In that scenario, you're just arming your assailant.

Recipe for disaster? The disaster is already unfolding, or else you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have drawn the gun in the first place. Once you have committed yourself to using deadly force for the purpose of self-preservation, I can see no reason why you should be handicapped by an absurdly arbitrary legal limitation. As mentioned above, no one in extremis has ever said "It's a good thing I don't have too many bullets in my gun."

[Starboard Tack]

131. I could shoot someone if I had to

but I wouldn't want to be tempted to keep shooting them. I wouldn't fire the gun if wasn't absolutely sure where the bullet was going. There's way too much overkill and collateral damage out there already.

[Straw Man]

134. If ...

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 12:48 AM - Edit history (2)

... you had to shoot someone, you would need to be able to keep shooting them until they stopped doing whatever they were doing to make you shoot them in the first place. And it had better be something that was about to cause you grievous bodily harm possibly resulting in death, or else you should never have shot them in the first place.

In your scenario, if the single bullet that you fired failed to stop them, and the odds are very great that it would (see "one shot stops&quot , they would carry on doing what they had been doing, and you would quite probably end up dead.

Not a good plan. Not at all.

[Starboard Tack]

135. You're right, it's not a good plan.

But shooting someone once or multiple times is never a good plan. Best to avoid the whole situation. If I ever carried a gun, it would be for the sole purpose of feeling safer, not being safer. So that wouldn't be a good plan either. I'm only talking about carrying here, btw, not home defense.

[Straw Man]

136. I'm glad you realize this.

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I've heard people say similar things about carrying an unloaded gun, to "scare off" an assailant without having to shoot -- needless to say, that's also a very bad idea.

Re "feeling" vs. "being" safer: It seems to me that feeling safe without actually being safe is a dangerous condition. False confidence, etc.

I think everyone agrees that avoiding danger is the best plan. I heard a firearms instructor tell a student who had asked about the best gun to carry when jogging in an area where people have been attacked by feral dogs, "Jog somewhere else."

[Starboard Tack]

137. Your firearms instructor was right.

Fact is, people who carry do so because they believe it is safer than not carrying, ie. they feel safer. There are times when that may turn out to be true and times when it may turn out to be more dangerous. The anecdotal evidence points both ways. I would never carry an unloaded weapon for potential SD, but if the gun leaves my possession, I want to be the one who emptied it and having one shot makes that more likely. I'll take those odds, you decide for yourself. But if seven aren't enough, you probably shouldn't be carrying.

[Straw Man]

138. And so are you, up to a point ...

But if seven aren't enough, you probably shouldn't be carrying.

That's where we part ways. How on earth can anyone determine in advance how many rounds will be "enough" for a potential violent encounter whose particulars are absolutely unknown? A woman hiking in Canada was killed by a pack of coyotes. She was unarmed, but had she been armed, would seven rounds have been "enough" for her to defend herself?

Don't be too worried about giving up your gun while it still has rounds in it. The odds are very slim that someone will try to take your gun away from you while you are actively engaged in shooting at them. The far more likely scenario is that they will either shoot back if they can or run like fucking hell. An assailant without a firearm who persists in attacking a victim who is actively shooting will eventually be stopped by total physical disability or death. That's essentially the whole point of having enough rounds in your gun.

The worst-case scenario is that you fire your one round at a knife-wielding or bat-wielding attacker and either miss or cause a non-fatal, non-disabling injury. The attacker will then proceed to cut you up or bash your head in.

For the third time, I will repeat the old saw that no one who has had to use a firearm in self defense has ever said, "Gee, I think I have too many bullets in my gun."

[Jenoch]

82. Nope.

It was not legal to own a slave in New York even 200 years ago.

[rdharma]

86. Seven or nine rounds semi-covered on the passenger seat.....

Responsible?

[Straw Man]

96. Not illegal.

Seven or nine rounds semi-covered on the passenger seat.....

Responsible?

With seven, it's legal. With nine, it isn't.

Responsible? Yes, with a drop-safe firearm in a solid holster, as long as it isn't left in the vehicle when the owner leaves the vehicle.

[rdharma]

97. Nine..... illegal! Buh-bye!

There goes the "precious"!

[Straw Man]

106. So you think this is a good law?

Would you like to have a law like this in your state?

[gejohnston]

107. If Rick Scott and the Republicans here

were to pass something like that, the backlash against them and the polluters, developers, and McMansion lovers that put them there just might be worth it.

[rdharma]

108. I would like to have universal background checks and registration in my state.

And every state in the USA.

[Straw Man]

111. What about seven-round limits?

Why can't you answer a simple question?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. WHAT SPLENDIFOROUS NEWS!

NEW LEBANON isn't exactly Hell's Kitchen but I'm sure everyone feels safer there now.

[rrneck]

62. Well, I'm sure a disaster was averted. nt

[rl6214]

66. Do you call any and every person that is arrested a "dickhead"?

[mwrguy]

67. Only when they're acting like a dickhead.

[rl6214]

68. Your use of the term dickhead is obviously very different than the average person.

Irrational might come to mind. Juvenile would be another one.

[mwrguy]

69. If you drive around with an illegal gun on the seat and no license, you might be a dickhead.

Just saying.

[rl6214]

70. Like I said, irrational, juvenile.

[gejohnston]

74. the gun was legal

according to the article.

[Eleanors38]

78. Oh, he just gotta have his pound if flesh.nt

[mwrguy]

88. It became illegal the second that cletus inserted the 8th round

[gejohnston]

89. the two rounds were illegally placed

the gun was still legal.
Statistically, he at least a couple of years of college. Since it is a blue state, it is fairly decent chance you bashed a fellow Democrat.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cletus
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/54bigsym.pdf

[rdharma]

92. Doubt it! eom

[Serve The Servants]

93. You must know this guy personally.

That's the only reason I can think of as to why you keep calling him a dickhead.

That, or you just generally have a dislike for gun owners. Would I be incorrect in assuming that?

[rdharma]

98. Jailbird? eom

[gejohnston]

99. probably just fined.

Of course the magazine charge could be thrown out.

[rdharma]

101. Probably deprived of his "gun hugger" permit and favorite gatt!

[gejohnston]

102. but as long as you have yours

all is good?

[rdharma]

103. I'm a responsible gun owner!

[oneshooter]

104. Until you aren't.

[rdharma]

105. But I'll always be. That's why expect others to be the same.

That's why I'm for universal background checks and registration.

I don't think that's too much of a burden to enjoy my hobby RESPONSIBLY!

[oneshooter]

109. You have the blood on your hands of all the victims of guns

You are responsible for the gun violence, pain and injury caused by guns. This is so because you own one of the vile things. And because you own one of those deadly things you are a vile and disgusting NRA member who wants to see dead children over their sights. Your "hobby"is the enjoyment of violence and murder, something no REAL democrat would ever enjoy.

That is what gun owners are told by your side of the board, this is what YOU are also.

Don't try to hide behind "enjoy my hobby RESPONSIBLY"as according to your "friends" on DU you suck wind just like any other gun owner.

[rdharma]

110. No. Not an NRA member....any more.

The NRA was a gun safety and training organization at one time. Now they are a Republican PAC and a lobbyist organization for gun manufacturers.

[oneshooter]

114. Doesn't matter. You are tainted with the blood of dead children.

[rdharma]

117. "tainted with the blood of dead children" Maybe so.........

But not by my FORMER membership in the NRA.

I'm more troubled with what I did in the military as an "enabler".

How about YOU?

[oneshooter]

119. I sleep like a newborn at night, most of thr time. A persons past is always there,

always in the shadows and small places in the mind.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. A good reason not to live in NY. N/T

[gejohnston]

139. hate to disappoint you but,

the DA won't prosecute it.

The Columbia County District Attorney is making good on a promise not to prosecute a man arrested under the SAFE Act.

DA Paul Czajka told NewsChannel 13 he would not prosecute Gregory Dean Jr.

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3043917.shtml

[Skip Intro]

140. And some cheer as the police state is erected, personal freedom stomped

into the ground like a hated bug.

Those that cheerfully pave this road will long to run the other way at some point, probably too late.

[CreekDog]

141. A gun control law that still allows guns is what you call "police state"?

wow.

what's next? you lecturing us against hyperbole?

[hack89]

142. Local DA refused to prosecute. Good. nt

[premium]

143. Hopefully

there will be more DA's that refuse to prosecute that ridiculous law.
I give credit to that DA for recognizing a stupid law and hope he continues to refuse to prosecute anyone for having more than 7 rounds in a magazine.