Man Wheels Suitcase With AR-15 Down Street - Arrested

[Marine Cpl]

Honest question:

@Willjr75 , how far do you take this angle that there should never be a charge for the gun at all?

If I got mad over one of our discussions, chased you down and shot you in front of your locker at the transit facility, do you really believe that my gun should only be vouchered for safekeeping until I finish my stint?

I don't know how it works in regards to evidence but once they are done with it, it should go back to you the day you leave prison.

What don't you understand about shall not be infringed? I view a firearm just the same as a hammer.

 

[Marine Cpl]

And I'll still waiting on the evidence that you can be convicted with criminal possession of a weapon with a badge or permit.

 

[Marine Cpl]

View attachment 43038

Only if the person is arguing with facts. In this case I'm using the Constitution and the penal law. Not opinion.

 

[Airborneguy]

It just is, I’m not in the business of convincing you that your views are delusional. I’m also not going to post prosecuting complaints on a public forum to be viewed by a few of the cop haters known to post here.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It just is, I’m not in the business of convincing you that your views are delusional. I’m also not going to post prosecuting complaints on a public forum to be viewed by a few of the cop haters known to post here.

How typical. Sorry you couldn't teach me with facts. I just should listen to you but that's impossible because I'm a racist.

Edit.. Cop hater. Not racist. I get that confused with the racist term that's always thrown out by the left to me in arguments.

 

[Airborneguy]

I didn’t mean you. It I did, you’d be blocked like the others.

I’m not posting privileged material for known perps to view. It’s bad enough they are here at all.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ok.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But if what you are saying is not in the law but rather in some court case where a judge decided to go against what the law actually says and nullify the exemption, you don't see a problem with that?

What good are the laws if judges can make them to whatever they want just to convict someone who would not have the law apply to him otherwise?

It would be no different if say for example someone registered their AR to be compliant with the law, got charged with menacing, speeding, jaywalking, or some other lesser charge and then the judge disregarded that he had a compliant, registered rifle that was exempt from the penal law and applied the law to him as if he had never registered it.

 

[Airborneguy]

I don’t see it the same. If you use a lawfully possessed weapon - gun or otherwise - in an unlawful manner, it makes perfect sense to me why charging for possession would be appropriate.

By the way, I’m at a meeting and asked the Sgt next to me and he says for cops the charge ends up being Criminal USE of a firearm, not regular CPW.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don’t see it the same. If you use a lawfully possessed weapon - gun or otherwise - in an unlawful manner, it makes perfect sense to me why charging for possession would be appropriate.

By the way, I’m at a meeting and asked the Sgt next to me and he says for cops the charge ends up being Criminal USE of a firearm, not regular CPW.

That changes things. Criminal Use is much different and doesn't go against the penal law or the Constitution. No problems with that.

 

[SuffolkArms]

I don’t see it the same. If you use a lawfully possessed weapon - gun or otherwise - in an unlawful manner, it makes perfect sense to me why charging for possession would be appropriate.

By the way, I’m at a meeting and asked the Sgt next to me and he says for cops the charge ends up being Criminal USE of a firearm, not regular CPW.

Is there any case law that actually shows charges like that sticking? It does not do so according to People vs. Parker:

(6) The majority appears troubled by policy considerations inherent in providing an exemption from prosecution to a person charged with a violation of section 265.03 of the Penal Law, even when that person possesses an unlimited license. Good policy or bad policy — that is what the statute says. Courts should not torture clear statutory language to mean what it does not say, in the dubious interest of reaching a result which the court perceives to be more desirable.

Although it is my view that in this case defendant cannot be prosecuted for a violation of section 265.03, there are indeed remedies available for the improper use of the weapon or violation of the license, i.e., the administrative procedure of license revocation, or criminal prosecution for menacing, attempted assault, harassment or the violation under subdivision 15 of section 400.00 — charges which were omitted from the indictment.

 

[M_F]

I don’t see it the same. If you use a lawfully possessed weapon - gun or otherwise - in an unlawful manner, it makes perfect sense to me why charging for possession would be appropriate.

By the way, I’m at a meeting and asked the Sgt next to me and he says for cops the charge ends up being Criminal USE of a firearm, not regular CPW.

A pistol license holder in Suffolk County got into a road rage incident/chase with another motorist, fired one shot to the other car, he was charged with menacing and reckless endangerment,

****He was charged with CPW, another article also mentioned that he had an unregistered pistol in his home.

Man arrested in apparent road rage shooting on Long Island highway

 

[SuffolkArms]

A pistol license holder in Suffolk County got into a road rage incident/chase with another motorist, fired one shot to the other car, he was charged with menacing and reckless endangerment,

****He was charged with CPW, another article also mentioned that he had an unregistered pistol in his home.

Man arrested in apparent road rage shooting on Long Island highway

No way to know if they charged him for Criminal Possession of a Weapon for his unregistered pistol or the one he used in the shooting.

 

[Airborneguy]

Is there any case law that actually shows charges like that sticking? It does not do so according to People vs. Parker:

What you posted actually is a reversal of the dismissing of CPW by the trial judge:

The order of the Supreme Court, New York County (MILONAS, J.), entered September 2, 1977, dismissing the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd 1, par [h]) should be reversed, on the law, the motion to dismiss denied, and the indictment reinstated, without prejudice to a new motion based on materially different facts, if any, properly established of record.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well. I think it's settled anyway. We permit holders or a cop would have been charged with Criminal Use of a Firearm.

The idiot in the OP should have been charged with the same along with other charges such as resisting arrest, menacing, ect and it would have been 100% constitutional without the trampling of constitutional rights.

 

[SuffolkArms]

What you posted actually is a reversal of the dismissing of CPW by the trial judge:

You are correct, I got my wires crossed, I was thinking People v. Schumann, PEOPLE v. SCHUMANN | 133 Misc.2d 499 (1986) | sc2d4991547 | Leagle.com. From the text there it appears the PL 265 exception was legislated after the Parker decision and effectively negates it. With that being said, it is less convincing since there's no additional crime committed by Schumann besides merely carrying outside of restriction.