State expected to drop charges against Iraq War veteran accused of SAFE Act crimes

[Jem45472]

State expected to drop charges against Iraq War veteran accused of SAFE Act crimes

“Yes, it’s a win, but my life has been turned upside-down for almost seven years now,” the Marine Corps veteran said in a telephone interview Sunday evening. “This whole thing has been hell for me and my family. We’ll never get those years back.

“I got fired from the job I had when I got arrested. I was also under consideration for a job with the federal government, and I was told I was no longer under consideration, because of the arrest. I tried to get back on active duty with the Marines and was turned down. And with all that has happened, there was no ruling in my case on whether the SAFE Act is unconstitutional or not.”

 

[SomeSoldier]

Nothing to see here. Move along please.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Another example of the SAFE Act helping citizens in our fine state.

 

[Podmonkey]

They only dropped the charges to keep unSAFE out of court. That Marine should sue the state, we should leverage the hell out of instances like this to get unSAFE in the courts every chance we get.

 

[Shadow2]

They don't want a single gun case to reach SCOTUS

 

[Grimscale]

They don't want a single gun case to reach SCOTUS

Then they've handed us the means to defeat unSAFE.
A Law not prosecuted is no Law at all.

 

[MothMan]

The state did drop the case. After 7 years of litigation.

You only need seven yeeeaaarrs to ruin a mans life!!

 

[Celt]

This law ruined this guy's life while making no one safer. It's a travesty what's happened to him. And the fact that the court is trying to dodge a bullet that could hurt the Safe Act really sucks. Im glad the charges will be dropped, but like he said, he cant get these years back.

 

[Jem45472]

This law ruined this guy's life while making no one safer. It's a travesty what's happened to him. And the fact that the court is trying to dodge a bullet that could hurt the Safe Act really sucks. Im glad the charges will be dropped, but like he said, he cant get these years back.

 

[MoMan]

Ruin this guy's life, and yet, the SAFE act goes on!!

 

[Edwardteach72]

Here's the thing, if you watch the opening statements (there is a thread with the video link somewhere) the court did not want to hear any arguments when it came to the 2A, the whole dismissal was being based off jurisdiction and how the DA handled the case. Good for the guy but very little if anything 2A related came from this

 

[Doc8404]

Can someone explain why the state police would not have jurisdiction?

 

[Edwardteach72]

Can someone explain why the state police would not have jurisdiction?

I'm looking for the thread I started that had the video of both sides opening arguments and the panel of judges

 

[Bob]

Can someone explain why the state police would not have jurisdiction?

The question wasn't whether the State Police had law-enforcement jurisdiction, but rather whether the Attorney General's office had prosecutorial jurisdiction. The ruling was that they do not.
People v Wassell

 

[Edwardteach72]

The question wasn't whether the State Police had law-enforcement jurisdiction, but rather whether the Attorney General's office had prosecutorial jurisdiction. The ruling was that they do not.
People v Wassell

This is what it was Thank you

 

[Marine Cpl]

Here’s what I don’t understand. The Safe Act gave you one year from it’s inception to destroy, sell out of state, or turn in. It gave you an exemption to possess for one year after the law came into effect to do so.

(g) provided, however, that such term does not include

(h) Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen.

An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.

If you sold the banned items to someone within NY that wasn’t authorized to have an exemption for it, it was only a misdemeanor.

Instead of being charged with just the misdemeanor for selling to someone in NYS, he was charged with third-degree criminal possession of a weapon (A felony) and two counts of third-degree criminal sale of a weapon.

A person is guilty of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree when such person is not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm and such person unlawfully either:

(1) sells, exchanges, gives or disposes of a firearm or large capacity ammunition feeding device to another person;  or

(2) possesses a firearm with the intent to sell it.

Criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree is a class D felony.


He was authorized to possess it.
But somehow he was convicted of the felonies in contrast to what the law actually says. He had an exemption from criminal possession of a weapon for one year and the arrest happened 9 days after the law came into place.

Somehow his lawyer missed this in the first trial. This is why I do not trust lawyers and if ever pinched, I would represent myself. It’s written there in plain English that he had an exemption for one year to possess.

My guess is that the state knew that he was wrongly convicted in contrast to the law for possessing and also the prosecutor had no jurisdiction. Also, he committed no crime if he sold to a cop since a cop has an exemption.

 

[Acer-m14]

just like monkey face with the papers on the SCOTUS desks changing the rules trying to get them to not rule ..

 

[Kirk_STNY]

Status as of July 9, 2019:

Case dismissed. Video also


First Ever SAFE Act Conviction Dismissed with Prejudice – 2AWNY

2A all the way!

 

[M_F]

Here’s what I don’t understand. The Safe Act gave you one year from it’s inception to destroy, sell out of state, or turn in. It gave you an exemption to possess for one year after the law came into effect to do so.

(g) provided, however, that such term does not include

(h) Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen.

An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.

If you sold the banned items to someone within NY that wasn’t authorized to have an exemption for it, it was only a misdemeanor.

Instead of being charged with just the misdemeanor for selling to someone in NYS, he was charged with third-degree criminal possession of a weapon (A felony) and two counts of third-degree criminal sale of a weapon.

A person is guilty of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree when such person is not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm and such person unlawfully either:

(1) sells, exchanges, gives or disposes of a firearm or large capacity ammunition feeding device to another person;  or

(2) possesses a firearm with the intent to sell it.

Criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree is a class D felony.


He was authorized to possess it.
But somehow he was convicted of the felonies in contrast to what the law actually says. He had an exemption from criminal possession of a weapon for one year and the arrest happened 9 days after the law came into place.

Somehow his lawyer missed this in the first trial. This is why I do not trust lawyers and if ever pinched, I would represent myself. It’s written there in plain English that he had an exemption for one year to possess.

My guess is that the state knew that he was wrongly convicted in contrast to the law for possessing and also the prosecutor had no jurisdiction. Also, he committed no crime if he sold to a cop since a cop has an exemption.

I read one of the transcripts which included the testimony of a fudd gun store owner. According to the merchant the man first attempted to sell the AR to his gun store in 2012 when the old pataki AWB was in effect (two evil features). He obviously declined the transaction because the rifle was not NY compliant, and it was much newer than a 1994 pre ban. Like a good fudd traitor he contacted the NYS Police with the tip. I’m not sure what happened after that but my guess is that by the time the troopers started investigating the man and orchestrating the undercover sting the unSafe act was already law. He could have still been charged with a felony even by the old AWB.