NY veteran facing 21 years for having standard Glock magazines

[Marine Cpl]

What does this mean in Penal Law 265 regarding magazines.

NB Suspended and NOT Effective per ch 1/2013 S 58, as amended by ch
57/2013 Pt. FF S

Looks like it means not amended yet so not applicable.

 

[Chipperxd]

I think the "lawyer" of this case was trying to drum up support over at NY Firearms forum.

He was calling gun owners paper tigers and such for not showing up to the court room to support the defendant.

Hope no one ever uses that guy as their lawyer.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Penal Law 265 under definition says.... Pay close attention to the last sentence.

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that
can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of
ammunition, or * (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, or
(c) is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of
two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a capacity
of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than
seven rounds of ammunition
* NB Suspended and NOT Effective per ch 1/2013 S 58, as amended by ch
57/2013 Pt. FF S 4

 

[Marine Cpl]

I stand corrected. The asterisk is in regards to the 7 round limit.

But it still says that it has to be obtained after.

 

[Robin]

Trouble is Mek, today there is always somebody watching, oh and their there to help.
Robin

As A Jew I would appreciate you keeping my people out of this thread. Carry on.

Yeah, and as a Presbyterian I resent the.........................., wait, ....................well, some one Herr Steyr used in an insulting manner must have been a presbyterian, I mean, he cuts a pretty wide swath.
Rev. Robin

 

[SteyrAug]

Look boys, I am tired with debating settled law and the fate of a convicted felon with folks who won't accept the facts.

What you think about searches in conjunction with arrests matters not a whit. The court found the search was proper and the magazines were not "fruit of the poisoned tree".

I agree the SAFE act sucks but YOUR elected represenatives and YOUR Governor made it the state law.

There are ways to change laws (see Heller) or elect a new government. If you chose to violate the law and are caught, you, not the government is responsible.

If you wish to set up a fund to challenge this conviction all the way up to SCOTUS, that is your right and I wish you well.

I find it interesting that the NRA/ILA is not rushing to this guy's banner either before or after his conviction.

I doubt he'll get anything like 21 years. Were I the judge, I'd credit him for time served, put him on probation and restore his pp as he needs that to work.

The fact that his arrest/conviction has garnered so much attention has, I hope, informed the uninformed.

Neither I nor any of you have any standing in this case. You can always do the same thing he did and see how you make out.

That's all folks !

 

[Marine Cpl]

Finally, a smart post.

 

[Robin]

Wrong headed! We all have standing! All of us!!!!
Robin

 

[SteyrAug]

Robin, If you think you do, assemble a legal team and sue on YOUR behalf. You are powerless in this case.

"Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you "lack standing" to bring the suit and dismiss your case.

There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:

1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.
2. Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
3. Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.

There are other requirements imposed by judge made law:

1. A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court.
2. A plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers."

That is what was done in Heller. Second part financing is legal. You might note SCOTUS in Heller did NOT remove the state's right to regulate firearms, ONLY that an outright ban was forbidden. The Heller fight continues as DC keeps throwing more roadblocks in the way of potential handgun owners, each one resulting in more court cases.

If you believe handgun magazine capacity laws meet the 3 standings test, I urge you to proceed. But just being pissed does not give you standing in the court's eyes.

 

[MothMan]

Shooter??

His lawyer must have been a divorce lawyer. How can they get away with illegally searching his car?

 

[Robin]

I am aware of the meaning of 'standing' as a legal term. Most people are aware of what was implied by my statement 'We all have standing'.
We just see things differently, and honestly, though your statement beginning with 'debating settled law' was well put, the whole time I was reading it this is the vision I had.

You seem to have a very short fuse, so before you go off just understand we see things differently.
Robin

 

[ICEMAN]

I can't open the link cav.but without probable cause. The police cannot open the box. There is no probable cause to open it. It cannot be opened for an inventory search.

The box wouldn't be legally opened in a search incident to arrest, but after the arrest during inventory of vehicle it is legal. I feel bad for this guy and think he was caught up in a law meant for law enforcement to stack charges on criminals using guns while committing crimes. According to New York's unconstitutional SAFE ACT, he broke the law, but I doubt anyone believes someone who honorably served in our military, with a clean record, should be subject to any prison time.

 

[SteyrAug]

Robin, being a sheep implies you do nothing but submit. Breaking the law is one way to resist that usually does not work out. Using the system within the law makes far more sense to me.

Iceman, Lee Harvey Oswald honorably served and was honorably discharged. If you believe the SAFE act to be unconstitutional there are far better remedies than becoming a felon.

As I said, were a statewide referendum to ban all guns from civilians, it would pass. Hillary got 4,556,124 votes, Trump got 2,819,534. Do you really think there are 900,000 people who voted for Clinton who would vote to keep guns ? You best hope the Democraps never put it up for a vote !

 

[ECU Pirates]

Actually a sheep follows.

 

[ECU Pirates]

Look boys, I am tired with debating settled law and the fate of a convicted felon with folks who won't accept the facts.

!

You seem to like meme's.Here's one for you:

 

[holdover]

Iceman, he cannot open a locked case for an inventory search without PC or Warrantt. Or consent. Without PC there is no legal reason to justify opening jt. Without PC it's just a fishing expedition. Obviously if there is drugs in the car there is enough PC to search the box. A warrantt may or not be required at that point. But for speeding or drunk driving there is no PC to believe he has mags ,drugs or body parts in the box.if he shot someone they have PC to believe a weapon may be in there .there is no PC to open that box in this case .in this particular case it may have not been locked.

 

[Robin]

I still think the guy was set up.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

I still think the guy was set up.
Robin

Me too. Why were the body cameras turned off?

 

[ICEMAN]

Iceman, he cannot open a locked case for an inventory search without PC or Warrantt. Or consent. Without PC there is no legal reason to justify opening jt. Without PC it's just a fishing expedition. Obviously if there is drugs in the car there is enough PC to search the box. A warrantt may or not be required at that point. But for speeding or drunk driving there is no PC to believe he has mags ,drugs or body parts in the box.if he shot someone they have PC to believe a weapon may be in there .there is no PC to open that box in this case .in this particular case it may have not been locked.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the searching of locked containers upon inventory of a vehicle, would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if Dept Policy is to open all containers during impound and inventory of the vehicle. Reasons include 1) protect the owners property.2)protect the police from dangerous objects.3)protect the police from false allegations of theft. Also stated was that the Department Policy must not use the search selectively to discover evidence where no other probable cause exists , but it must be a general policy for all inventory searches for the reasons listed above.

Basically the work around for the search is that the Dept Policy must conduct searches on all vehicles impounded/inventoried. If the policy is used selectively in cases where they are looking for evidence and no other PC exists, then I agree it would likely be unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. I have not looked at the arresting departments inventory policy, but many departments in upstate NY generally search everything if vehicle is impounded.

 

[holdover]

OK, that makes more sense .I knew they couldn't use anything as evidence in the box unless they had PC /consent to open it.its been a long time, my law is a little rusty.

 

[Saltwater60]

and the pick and choose scumbags DA that slap the wrist of a career piece of trash dirt bag criminal over a law abiding citizens let alone a Vet

Well stated as usual. Let the drug dealer spit, but give this guy the max.

 

[SteyrAug]

Still waiting for the "free willie" fund to be started here. Don't ask me, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Even a "renta-a-cop" should have know he was breaking the law.

 

[Bozo]

Got any sweet 'Nam stories for us? "Special Forces", right?

 

[GOPerfect]

Still waiting for the "free willie" fund to be started here. Don't ask me, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Even a "renta-a-cop" should have know he was breaking the law.

What do all of these drivel type comments have to do with anything? Anything at all?

 

[GOPerfect]

Got any sweet 'Nam stories for us? "Special Forces", right?

Served in the very first Green Berets

 

[SteyrAug]

What "they have to do" are some members are defending this guy's conduct and posturing him as the innocent victim of a Stalinist state run amuck.

He was arrested, indicted and convicted by a jury of his peers. That's how it works .... NY is not unique.

He has, of course, the right of appeal and anyone who thinks his conviction was unjustified has the DUTY as a free citizen of the USA to provide him the means to facilitate his appeal.

All I see here is whining with no real commitment to step up and be counted.

Sorry you disagree with me. It's always easier to shoot the messenger than to step up and up something.

There are people who deserve help. I don't feel someone who ignores a clear law and then exacerbates his actions by acting in a manner to cause him to be stopped and then gives the cops a ration of crap. Not content to be stupid at the traffic stop, he then lectures the jury on the second amendment.

In spite of the "the sky is falling" title of the thread, he will never do 21 years or even close. He will be disarmed.

Really not the hill to die on, but anti-sun news is slow since Donald moved in.

 

[SteyrAug]

Served in the very first Green Berets

Not to be confused with you.

 

[GOPerfect]

Nope, never the GB. I did serve, I volunteered many years ago, did an entire career of 25 years. Mobilized and deployed quite a few times. Unlike many past wars, I continued to volunteer to go into harms way. Continue to serve my community in LE.

Unlike some here, such as yourself, I do not think I am better because I served. I have never threatened to shoot another forum member because they insulted me.

I do not reply to posts for the sake of insulting others because I do not agree with them. That is, not like you. All are welcomed here, no one gets banned or kicked out; we come here to discuss current events, guns and politics. None of us come here just to toss insults.

 

[SteyrAug]

Well I wasn't a GB either. Covers worn by French faggots were not our style. IMO everyone who served is better for it. Were the draft still in place we would not be overrun with these asshat snowflake. The new entitled class spawned by the 60s protestors will, if unchecked, destroy our country. That's how it works when empires become soft .... always has, always will. Our enemies are among us and unlike us are tough and disciplined. Europe is lost, England very close, Canada next BUT we will be different ..... yup sure keep sucking the kool aid.

 

[spat]

What "they have to do" are some members are defending this guy's conduct and posturing him as the innocent victim of a Stalinist state run amuck.

He was arrested, indicted and convicted by a jury of his peers. That's how it works ....

That's how it works in totalitarian states too. The judge tells the jury to convict, and they do. Makes things seem nice and legitimate.