BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I suggest you read Heller.
No law prevented this guy from registering the gun. He didn't.
No law prevented this guy from registering the gun. He didn't.
Talking to the troopers like he has is very likely why he is only charged with the "illegal" gun possession, which would have been immediately obvious to them anyway once his name was run. The only reason he hasn't been charged with the perps' deaths is because he told a story consistent with currently available facts.
How would he have been better off clamming up which would have DEFINITELY meant more initial charges?
Didn't Heller declare that ownership of a handgun in the home for the purpose of self defense was a Right? Whether registered or not, that would imply that he was able to own the gun, thus it was (or should not have been) "illegal". Or did Heller say it was a Right only when the .gov said you could own it through registration?
And if it was his deceased father's gun, it is therefore HIS gun due to inheritance.
I suggest you read Heller.
No law prevented this guy from registering the gun. He didn't.
His attorney will move for "dismal in the interest of justice."'It's either them or me': Homeowner's attorney speaks out on Deerfield fatal shooting
Looking better and better.
Thanks for the post.
I guess all the “wait for your attorney and ask for a ride to the hospital” beat into our heads over the years is bad advice.
More specifically the quote of him answering the question “did you see anything in their hands?”
You miss the point. The NY law is unconstitutional, that's what makes it SCOTUS territory.This is a reasonable charge, given NY laws.
Most importantly there is no mention of him being charged with any crime related to actually defending himself. Now if this were the case of somebody temporarily borrowing an unregistered gun (e.g. registered to his dad and his dad left for vacation and he temporarily takes custody to defend himself), I would have a huge problem with that. But instead what happened is this event just shone light on the fact he had illegally owned this for a long period of time.
I don't see it as a SCOTUS issue. This case has nothing to do, seemingly to me, with him actually defending himself.
No money... They will charge him with something big .. He will take a plea deal .. .. It will never get out of the county... Takes a lot of money to run the court system...Not everyone is issued a pistol permit - and that takes money. Doesn't look like this guy had $200+ to spare to pay the state's ransom for a RIGHT.
Articles are saying it was a .38 cal revolver...
If he had used an AR15-variant he'd still be in trouble.
I hope that’s sarcasm. It’s never a good idea to talk without a lawyer. Keep your mouth shut. Talking without a lawyer can only hurt you long term.Thanks for the post.
I guess all the “wait for your attorney and ask for a ride to the hospital” beat into our heads over the years is bad advice.
More specifically the quote of him answering the question “did you see anything in their hands?”
In jail with a felony charge isn’t exactly working out well. How does waiting for a lawyer hurt you?Most of the time that is the correct answer, but look how it worked out for him by talking.
Most of the time that is the correct answer, but look how it worked out for him by talking.
And it very well still might. I see charges on the way.I hear you bro.
Could have easily gone in the other direction.
After he's arraigned on the felony it'll be sent to Utica and stay there unless it's moved to another county or dropped. Town courts have no jurisdiction for felonies beyond arraignment.Wondering if he'll face the charges in Deerfield court or send him to the cesspool of Utica to answer the charges.. Two different worlds..
Not everyone is issued a pistol permit - and that takes money. Doesn't look like this guy had $200+ to spare to pay the state's ransom for a RIGHT.
Articles are saying it was a .38 cal revolver...
If he had used an AR15-variant he'd still be in trouble.
Only in today’s America do we have people that defend a bad decision that says that it’s constitutional to have a right violated as long as you are given permission to exercise that right via a license.
In jail with a felony charge isn’t exactly working out well. How does waiting for a lawyer hurt you?
It might have been on point but it wasn't at issue so it's not part of Heller's holding. If you read it carefully that's clear. It seems likely that some level of firearm licensing is likely to be approved by the current supreme court but that case hasn't quite happened, yet.Read @nortatoga's quote from the Heller decision it is squarely on point here.
There was a mechanism for this guy to make the firearm legal. He didnt.
I thought you were saying speaking right away without legal representation was a good thing. Also he will be getting more charges.The felony charge he has - the only charge he’s facing after killing two people - was unavoidable in NY the second the troopers checked the gun’s registration. And he has a lawyer, did I miss that he spoke without one?
Only in today’s America do we have people that defend a bad decision that says that it’s constitutional to have a right violated as long as you are given permission to exercise that right via a license.
I thought you were saying speaking right away without legal representation was a good thing. Also he will be getting more charges.
That’s seems more likely and probably more likely that he’ll take the plea. They’ll make it attractive. No jail time, time served, and probation if I had to guess.I highly doubt he will see more charges. On the contrary, they will drop the whole thing or offer a misdemeanor plea.
Yeah, it's just--to me--not a glaringly abusive breach of the 2nd such that SCOTUS would ever consider it. Scotus is okay with some level of licensing or "due process" or whatever (and I do believe it's way over the top in NY state).You miss the point. The NY law is unconstitutional, that's what makes it SCOTUS territory.
We all realize what the law says, and that this guy should have expected to be charged. What we are saying is that the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
It used to be against the law to harbor escaped slaves too, and people caught doing so should have expected serious punishment for that as well. Doesn't mean the law was right.
I can't see SCOTUS disallowing shall issue, after all they allow requiring registration for voting, but I could see then outlawing any fee or arbitrary requirement as akin to a poll tax.Yeah, it's just--to me--not a glaringly abusive breach of the 2nd such that SCOTUS would ever consider it. Scotus is okay with some level of licensing or "due process" or whatever (and I do believe it's way over the top in NY state).