NY veteran facing 21 years for having standard Glock magazines

[@thewheels]

Spat as I figured is an NRA hater. W/O the NRA we would be where England is today. You give them too much credit - With the NRA, NY has had Sullivan for over a 100 years.

 

[Robin]

SCOPE!
Robin

 

[Day444]

Because this is a gun forum. And this is what happens on gun forums....

Yeah, I guess but it all seems pointless at times.

 

[SteyrAug]

yeah SCOPE has been SO successful ! Any gun owner who is not an NRA member is a FOOL !

There is NO defense for any alternative position.

If you are NOT with us, you are, by default, against us.

I doubt any of you NRA haters know the Sullivan law was passed by IRISH cops and politicians with the primary purpose of keeping the newly freed blacks from arming themselves to protect against racist cops and other NY officials.

In most cases it has nothing to do with the NRA actions, you're just too cheap to sign up.

 

[Robin]

SCOPE!
Robin

 

[Day444]

@Day444 , are you saying you agree with him that we should get prosecuted for unjust laws? Because that is all that he is saying over and over.

Not saying I'm in total agreement with this gentleman. I understand the point he is making. This guy broke the law, unjust as some many find it. But it is the law. If some gun owners choose to brake the law, then we fall into the "there all law breakers!" category in some eyes, true or not.
I choose not to carry more then 10 rounds in a weapon, I choose not to have in my possession magazines that carry more then 10 rounds, I choose to carry concealed, I choose to follow the law. I choose to find other avenues to fight the unjust laws rather then brake them.

 

[Marine Cpl]

yeah SCOPE has been SO successful ! Any gun owner who is not an NRA member is a FOOL !

There is NO defense for any alternative position.

If you are NOT with us, you are, by default, against us.

I doubt any of you NRA haters know the Sullivan law was passed by IRISH cops and politicians with the primary purpose of keeping the newly freed blacks from arming themselves to protect against racist cops and other NY officials.

In most cases it has nothing to do with the NRA actions, you're just too cheap to sign up.

If you are not with us, you are against us. Yes. You are correct. You finally says something right. The NRA is not with us here in NY. So why should I support an organization that is against me.

You aren't an idiot after all.

 

[Day444]

I'm both an NRA and Scope member. Does that make me half wrong?
NRA member mostly for the gun insurance coverage.
Scope member as it's a local (NY) type thing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not saying I'm in total agreement with this gentleman. I understand the point he is making. This guy broke the law, unjust as some many find it. But it is the law. If some gun owners choose to brake the law, then we fall into the "there all law breakers!" category in some eyes, true or not.
I choose not to carry more then 10 rounds in a weapon, I choose not to have in my possession magazines that carry more then 10 rounds, I choose to carry concealed, I choose to follow the law. I choose to find other avenues to fight the unjust laws rather then brake them.

I guarantee that you have broken the law carrying in one way or another and perhaps not even known it.

He broke an unconstitutional law. If they pass another law saying that you can only have 1 round in the magazine, would you support his arrest if he had 2?

At some point people have enough. You haven't reached that level yet. He had.

 

[@thewheels]

yeah SCOPE has been SO successful ! Any gun owner who is not an NRA member is a FOOL !

There is NO defense for any alternative position.

If you are NOT with us, you are, by default, against us.

I doubt any of you NRA haters know the Sullivan law was passed by IRISH cops and politicians with the primary purpose of keeping the newly freed blacks from arming themselves to protect against racist cops and other NY officials.

In most cases it has nothing to do with the NRA actions, you're just too cheap to sign up.

Any gun owner who would vote to convict the guy in the OP under the safe act is a fool.

The NRA's issue is they just need more money to fix NY, NJ, CT and CA gun laws?

 

[Bob]

Yeah, I guess but it all seems pointless at times.

It absolutely does. But there are occasionally some good nuggets to be gleaned from from the forums. And it keeps the keyboard commandos and trolls busy while I'm outside turning money into noise.

 

[dubleuhb]

The NRA's issue is they just need more money to fix NY, NJ, CT and CA gun laws?

Lemmings, make a donation I give you shiny new whatever we can get our logo printed on. Sign up and get a new hat and a sticker to show your support.
Meanwhile back here in NY we have what this thread is about and shmucks OK with it.

 

[@thewheels]

He broke an unconstitutional law. If they pass another law saying that you can only have 1 round in the magazine, would you support his arrest if he had 2?

At some point people have enough. You haven't reached that level yet. He had.

God forbid we got a Safe act 2 and they made it illegal to use any firearm in self defense anywhere.
This must be a "gray" issue for some and I certainly can't see why.
Just how unconstitutional does it need to be before we all agree that a jury shouldn't convict? Would the above scenario be enough?
There's no reasonable justification for convicting someone under a clearly unconstitutional law.
And we don't need some corrupt NY black robed bandits to clarify this. Or SCOTUS for that matter.

 

[Deplorable Me]

yeah SCOPE has been SO successful ! Any gun owner who is not an NRA member is a FOOL !

There is NO defense for any alternative position.

If you are NOT with us, you are, by default, against us.

I doubt any of you NRA haters know the Sullivan law was passed by IRISH cops and politicians with the primary purpose of keeping the newly freed blacks from arming themselves to protect against racist cops and other NY officials.

In most cases it has nothing to do with the NRA actions, you're just too cheap to sign up.

How many cases have you won?

 

[swilliams]

Lemmings, make a donation I give you shiny new whatever we can get our logo printed on. Sign up and get a new hat and a sticker to show your support.
Meanwhile back here in NY we have what this thread is about and shmucks OK with it.

This, and this again.
And as a NYC resident for 30 years, yes, I'm very aware of how and why Sullivan came to be. Doesn't change the fact that the NRA hasn't done squat about it. You don't find SCOPE to be your cup of tea? All well and good. How about GOA or SAF? Both have done more for gun owners than the NRA.

(Edit for grammatical error, since I wasn't quoting.)

 

[Day444]

I guarantee that you have broken the law carrying in one way or another and perhaps not even known it.
He broke an unconstitutional law. If they pass another law saying that you can only have 1 round in the magazine, would you support his arrest if he had 2?
At some point people have enough. You haven't reached that level yet. He had.

Yup, I probably have and do along with you.
I'm not saying I support his arrest, but he got caught.
Yes, some people "have enough" and you don't know if I have or not. I'm just saying there are better ways to prove a point and keep ones ass out of jail or prison.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yup, I probably have and do along with you.
I'm not saying I support his arrest, but he got caught.
Yes, some people "have enough" and you don't know if I have or not. I'm just saying there are better ways to prove a point and keep ones ass out of jail or prison.

Right. But this clown is saying that he would vote to convict no matter what the law is. If you got bagged at the Post Office whether by accident or just because you though you need to carry anyway because you believed in a threat, I wouldn't vote to convict.

 

[Day444]

Say the jury doesn't convict. Will this change the SAFE Act? It could but it's going to have to go to a higher court. One case might not make much of a difference. Yet, it shows an act of defiance by a citizen who other wise is of good moral caricature. IF he did what he's accused of with knowledge that he was breaking the law. If he just got jammed up and didn't know he was in the wrong, then he really is not a victim of these f'd up laws.

 

[FrankenCub]

Right. But this clown is saying that he would vote to convict no matter what the law is. If you got bagged at the Post Office whether by accident or just because you though you need to carry anyway because you believed in a threat, I wouldn't vote to convict.

Would also follow to the letter of the law if his masters told him he could only load two rounds per mag or cylinder. After all it only takes one round to kill a deeahhh.

 

[Day444]

Right. But this clown is saying that he would vote to convict no matter what the law is. If you got bagged at the Post Office whether by accident or just because you though you need to carry anyway because you believed in a threat, I wouldn't vote to convict.

What my vote would be as a juror: 'UNDECIDED"! Yes, he broke the law. Was there ill intent, none that we know of. I have a feeling he was trained in the use of firearms and that goes in his favor.
Ahh the Post Office, Veteran's Hospital, yeah I have to think twice before I go to either. Hell, can't even carry a pocket knife at the VA. I have because it's a habit for me to have a knife with me, most times I just return to my car and leave it there. Still doesn't make it right, and yeah I'd pay a penalty if I got nailed with it. One could argue that the Post Office downtown Newburgh, is not located in the safest place. Legally caring a gun would make good sense to a lot of people, but who knows if those people would be on a jury? Just as an off point, most Post Office shootings were committed by Postal employees. Yet, the law abiding gun carrier suffers by not being allow by Federal Law to carry in these places. Again sitting on the jury of one accused of caring in a Post Office: 'UNDECIDED!'
A vote of Undecided should be enough to dead lock a jury, and thus the case get retried or dropped.

 

[@thewheels]

Say the jury doesn't convict. Will this change the SAFE Act? By itself? Not necessarily, but it could have been an important 1st step.
It could but it's going to have to go to a higher court. It may or may not.
One case might not make much of a difference. Certainly possible that THIS case would not make much of a difference but then again it certainly could have

 

[Marine Cpl]

What would happen if every time a safe act arrest went to the jury and each and every time the jury failed to convict?

 

[nortatoga]

What would happen if every time a safe act arrest went to the jury and each and every time the jury failed to convict?

Yeah Right!

 

[Marine Cpl]

It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

John Adams, 1771

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, 1804

 

[Marine Cpl]

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yeah Right!

I'm not saying they would but if they weren't sheep and did so, what would happen?

 

[nortatoga]

I'm not saying they would but if they weren't sheep and did so, what would happen?[/QUOT

Do you know anything about jury selection and about lying during that selection?

 

[Marine Cpl]

What does that have to do with anything? I've been through it 3 times. Each time I answered truthfully that I could be impartial.

Did you read the quotes from the founding fathers who actually designed the system and also the 4th Circuit's ruling?

 

[@thewheels]

What would happen if every time a safe act arrest went to the jury and each and every time the jury failed to convict?

The safe act would be like NY's adultery laws. Still on the books but almost nobody gets charged much less convicted.

 

[nortatoga]

What does that have to do with anything? I've been through it 3 times. Each time I answered truthfully that I could be impartial.

Did you read the quotes from the founding fathers who actually designed the system and also the 4th Circuit's ruling?

That all depends on the questions you are ask during selection!

The law says anything over a 10 rd mag is illegal, they enter three 17 round mags into evidence. The defendant admitted to them being his! How can you vote innocent?

Believe me I would not be on this jury!