Loaded "Weapon" in Vehicle?

[Chevusa]

OK, your so sure of yourself and your knowledge and research then go ahead load up and drive around until you find a cop and then tell and show him the loaded "not firearm" and see what happens. Make sure to tape it or it didn't happen! I bet you don't have the balls to back up your claim.

Your argument is childish. Why would I track down a cop and show them a gun? On what planet do you think that is a good thing to do? I do know however, as per the actual written law, that if I were stopped I would be covered as the loaded firearm law, being in Article 11 is not to be enforced and "deemed to be effective for the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Law only." The argument cannot be broken. You can repeat it as many times as you wish. The written law text will not change no matter how many times you stomp your feet.

(Sheep in wolves clothing around here)
FUAC!!!
2A ALL THE WAY!!!!!
I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!
ANY LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
UNSAFE ACT!!!!!!

*Hunting regulation comes around which says it is enforced for wildlife and fishing purposes only*
YOU BETTER NOT!!!!!
IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!!
YOU'LL LOSE YOUR GUNS!!!
I DARE YOU!!!!
TAPE IT!!!!!!

Yawn. Just another fake internet tough guy. Go hide under your bed, and put on clean underwear, I think you shit yourself.

 

[Chevusa]

The telling sign that someone knows they are losing an argument, they start with insults and childish comments!

The argument is not valid. It is expressly written into law. It is in plain English. This is akin to standing outside and you telling me the sky is not blue, when by my direct observation I can see that it is. It is literally that foolish. There is no argument or debate. The law and the enforcement thereof is in writing. Nothing you can do will change that fact. If you're that afraid of your own shadow, don't do it. If you're that concerned turn em in and you won't have to worry about the laws. This is no different than being charged for an assault weapon even though yours is featureless. Yea the law by definition says your gun is legal, but the cops can arrest you anyway (by logic of your argument) so turn em in and move on with your life.

 

[nortatoga]

The argument is not valid. It is expressly written into law. It is in plain English. This is akin to standing outside and you telling me the sky is not blue, when by my direct observation I can see that it is. It is literally that foolish. There is no argument or debate. The law and the enforcement thereof is in writing. Nothing you can do will change that fact. If you're that afraid of your own shadow, don't do it. If you're that concerned turn em in and you won't have to worry about the laws. This is no different than being charged for an assault weapon even though yours is featureless. Yea the law by definition says your gun is legal, but the cops can arrest you anyway (by logic of your argument) so turn em in and move on with your life.

Again load up and drive around!

 

[BDinPutnam]

Arguing on the Internet- the Special Olympics of rhetoric.

 

[Chevusa]

Again load up and drive around!

Don't worry about what I'm doing. As for you, well we already know.

 

[Chevusa]

Arguing on the Internet- the Special Olympics of rhetoric.

Especially when it is explicitly written into law. Good grief.

 

[nortatoga]

@Chevusa continue to make yourself look foolish! By all means carry on!!

 

[Chevusa]

@Chevusa continue to make yourself look foolish! By all means carry on!!

You are the one who refuses to accept what is in clear written text in the law. No further response will be given to you on this subject, as you do not warrant it. I have cited and linked the actual law, not my opinions. Have a good day!

 

[pjzwtl]

Disagree with chev and your a fool, a sheep anti 2A, your hiding under your bed etc,etc Like we said do as you wish your only screwing your self and possibly anyone foolish enough to follow your advice.

 

[Chevusa]

Disagree with chev and your a fool, a sheep anti 2A, your hiding under your bed etc,etc Like we said do as you wish your only screwing your self and possibly anyone foolish enough to follow your advice.

It is NOT my advice. It is written directly into the law. It is not a secret language. It is not invisible ink. It clearly and explicitly says what it says under the headline of "Enforcement". It is to only be enforced, per the actual written text in the law, as a means of "wildlife and fishing" regulation only and NOT to "limit" or "supersede" anything allowed in Penal law "EXCEPT for those purposes". Read it again or remain ignorant. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Do you honestly believe the Conservation law was created to apply to things not concerning conservation? You can't possibly be that dense. Even if you did think so, the actual law itself says it does not. Lol. Game over.

 

[pjzwtl]

It is NOT my advice. It is written directly into the law. It is not a secret language. It is not invisible ink. It clearly and explicitly says what it says under the headline of "Enforcement". It is to only be enforced, per the actual written text in the law, as a means of "wildlife and fishing" regulation only and NOT to "limit" or "supersede" anything allowed in Penal law "EXCEPT for those purposes". Read it again or remain ignorant. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Do you honestly believe the Conservation law was created to apply to things not concerning conservation? You can't possibly be that dense. Even if you did think so, the actual law itself says it does not. Lol. Game over.

Your insults are telling and your ignorance to reality is scary. I know people who have been jammed up on this law, it wasn’t their imagination and it cost them some serious cha ching. Like we said if your so sure of yourself carry on.
“Game over“

 

[Chevusa]

I know people who have been jammed up on this law, it wasn’t their imagination and it cost them some serious cha ching.

Sure ya do. "Post it or it's not true" Court dispositions and arrest report citing what the individual what doing that led to the arrest required. Otherwise, I know a guy who's friends, neighbor's, sister's, cousin had a kitten that just had puppies!

 

[pjzwtl]

Sure ya do. "Post it or it's not true" Court dispositions and arrest report citing what the individual what doing that led to the arrest required. Otherwise, I know a guy who's friends, neighbor's, sister's, cousin had a kitten that just had puppies!

 

[Chevusa]

Anyone can make baseless claims about "someone" that heard that "something" happened to another person. Me, I go by what is written in the text of law. Without documentation you are trying to challenge a law on the books with what you claim you heard from someone else. That holds zero water. In fact, it is laughable. Nobody is going to take your word of what you heard over what is in black and white and written into the NY state law. You are dismissed!

 

[JackNeat]

Looking around the web via googlygoo and one thing is for sure... there are all sorts of interpretations, opinions and presumptions on this subject. Seems many LEA/O may also be operating under interpretations, opinions and presumptions if they pull you over and find a loaded Rifle/Shotgun. Most of the searches I have found have people saying NO... you CAN NOT drive around with a weapon loaded or magazines loaded if we are talking about anything other than a handgun. The reason for that opinion is you're going to get jammed up if you try and go around town with a loaded rifle or shotgun.

Even if it turns out there is a legal technicality in the various gun laws which might allow you to carry a loaded rifle/shotgun, are you willing to take on same major legal fees fighting the douchebaggery of NYS and Cuomo's government? I'm not and won't. If we still had pay phones I would go call the local State Troopers and ask them.

 

[Chevusa]

Even if it turns out there is a legal technicality in the various gun laws which might allow you to carry a loaded rifle/shotgun, are you willing to take on same major legal fees fighting the douchebaggery of NYS and Cuomo's government? I'm not and won't. If we still had pay phones I would go call the local State Troopers and ask them.

There is no need for a hypothetical. We can clearly see what is in writing in the actual law and what the enforcement of such law is and what it is not. You are assuming wildly that an arrest is automatic and would require "major legal fees" to fight it. By the letter of the law, it is not to be enforced "except for wildlife and fishing" purposes. A DA has no standing to pursue the charge. It is not up to him. He has to go by the law as it is written. He can not make it apply where it explicitly says it does not. It could not be any more clear. You could also be arrested for speeding and serve 15 days in jail, but it doesn't keep me up at night.

 

[spat]

Everyone else can read and comprehend what is explicitly stated in the law. Go hide under your bed or turn em all in.

You would think "shall not be infringed" was clear enough too, yet here we are.

 

[Chevusa]

The only cases I can find where someone was charged with this involved them shooting wildlife, driving through a field to spot wildlife, or coming out of the woods after hunting wildlife on an ATV. These are all within the scope of the "Enforcement" section of the law.

Take a step back and think. What is the intent of said law? It is so you cannot be driving and spot wildlife and take a shot from your vehicle, which is illegal in itself. Having a lawfully carried pistol loaded in the vehicle has noting to do with wildlife hunting. A gun for personal protection has nothing to do with wildlife hunting. The law is only in force to be used as it pertains to wildlife hunting. It is not to prevent someone from having a loaded gun in their car. I am already allowed to do that. It serves no purpose in regards to my and my activities. I am in no way involved in wildlife or fishing activities, which the law explicitly says are required for it to be enforced. That is the scope and intent of said law.

 

[Chevusa]

You would think "shall not be infringed" was clear enough too, yet here we are.

Nice point. But it doesn't apply here. In that case law exists that says otherwise. In this case, law exists that says it does not apply in this situation. So yes, it is the same thing, only opposite.

 

[spat]

There is no need for a hypothetical. We can clearly see what is in writing in the actual law and what the enforcement of such law is and what it is not. You are assuming wildly that an arrest is automatic and would require "major legal fees" to fight it. By the letter of the law, it is not to be enforced "except for wildlife and fishing" purposes. A DA has no standing to pursue the charge. It is not up to him. He has to go by the law as it is written. He can not make it apply where it explicitly says it does not. It could not be any more clear. You could also be arrested for speeding and serve 15 days in jail, but it doesn't keep me up at night.

Are you familiar with the recent case in St Louis where the couple who defended their home (without firing a shot) is being persecuted despite the law clearly being on their side ?

Do you want to bet *that* DA wouldn't decide you were "hunting" while on your way to buy milk?

 

[Chevusa]

Are you familiar with the recent case in St Louis where the couple who defended their home (without firing a shot) is being persecuted despite the law clearly being on their side ?

Do you want to bet *that* DA wouldn't decide you were "hunting" while on your way to buy milk?

They were pointing guns at people. Mine is in my vehicle in a case.

 

[JackNeat]

PL 265.00 DEFINITIONS
3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle
having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d)
any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or
otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e)
an assault weapon

15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any
firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a
quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.

As you can clearly see, "loaded firearm" is only a pistol or revolver in PL 265, for this discussions sake. (Not talking AW or SBS/SBR)

Is your argument based on the Shockwave and other such style guns not being called a shotgun ( currently ) in the legal sense? I think I got a little confused along the way with all the back and forth. I forgot your original post was dealing with the shockwave. I suppose that by the technical letter of the law, you could argue the point... for now. It's probably a sure bet that NY will add new wording to address the Shockwave style guns.

 

[Chevusa]

Is your argument based on the Shockwave and other such style guns not being called a shotgun ( currently ) in the legal sense? I think I got a little confused along the way with all the back and forth. I forgot your original post was dealing with the shockwave. I suppose that by the technical letter of the law, you could argue the point... for now. It's probably a sure bet that NY will add new wording to address the Shockwave style guns.

After reading the full law "none of Article 11 shall apply except for the purposes of wildlife and fishing". It is irrelevant what the shotgun/rifle is. Nothing in that Article applies if you are not engaged in those specific activities. Also you quoted PL265 definitions. They are not what DEC considers a firearm.

 

[spat]

They were pointing guns at people. Mine is in my vehicle in a case.

You will probably be safe because the odds of your vehicle ever being searched are pretty low. I've been driving a long time and it's never happened to me.

But, if you *do* happen to run into a cop with the wrong politics in a jurisdiction that backs him, you absolutely could run into trouble over this.

 

[Chevusa]

You will probably be safe because the odds of your vehicle ever being searched are pretty low. I've been driving a long time and it's never happened to me.

But, if you *do* happen to run into a cop with the wrong politics in a jurisdiction that backs him, you absolutely could run into trouble over this.

The DA would have to follow the written law. Unless they can string together a way to show with overwhelming evidence that I am in a "wildlife or fishing" capacity, the law says it shall not be enforced. Full stop. It is no different than saying they can get you for having having an AW even though yours is featureless. They need to go by the written legal definitions of the features. They cannot substitute their own.

 

[spat]

The DA would have to follow the written law. Unless they can string together a way to show with overwhelming evidence that I am in a "wildlife or fishing" capacity, the law says it shall not be enforced. Full stop. It is no different than saying they can get you for having having an AW even though yours is featureless. They need to go by the written legal definitions of the features. They cannot substitute their own.

LOL

The DA doesn't have to follow shit. And you have no recourse to sue them when they don't, because immunity.

That St Louis case is so egregious that the state AG says publicly that it's BS and that DA has a history of malicious politically motivated prosecution.

But she's still the DA.

 

[Chevusa]

LOL

The DA doesn't have to follow shit. And you have no recourse to sue them when they don't, because immunity.

That St Louis case is so egregious that the state AG says publicly that it's BS and that DA has a history of malicious politically motivated prosecution.

But she's still the DA.

And has a case with "victims" or "complainants" who had a loaded gun pointed at them. The DA can only charge what is in the law. They cannot make up their own. It would be like charging a police officer for carrying a gun. 265 says they are exempt but if the DA wants to make a case and doesn't like the cop he can do whatever he wants because "the DA doesn't have to follow shit" right? Cops are exempt by the letter of the law, just as someone not in a "wildlife or fishing" capacity is exempt, or the law "shall not be enforced" is how they worded it.

 

[BDinPutnam]

LOL

The DA doesn't have to follow shit. And you have no recourse to sue them when they don't, because immunity.

That St Louis case is so egregious that the state AG says publicly that it's BS and that DA has a history of malicious politically motivated prosecution.

But she's still the DA.

It's ok.

He'll win the "mute court" case on the side of the roadway with the trooper.

Or in actual court. You know, several months (or years) and several tens of thousands of dollars later.

And who'll be laughing then?!

 

[Chevusa]

It's ok.

He'll win the "mute court" case on the side of the roadway with the trooper.

Or in actual court. You know, several months (or years) and several tens of thousands of dollars later.

And who'll be laughing then?!

 

[BDinPutnam]

View attachment 79325

At least I *intentionally* mis-used the word "mute."