BREAKING: NY Permit Holder Arrested for 2 “Extra” Bullets

 Seven bullets- the legal limit in NY (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

“An upstate man was arrested under the state’s new gun law when troopers found him with a legally registered pistol that had a magazine that held nine bullets – two more than the new statute allows,” lohud.com reports. “Troopers from the New Lebanon barracks in Columbia County stopped a car driven by Gregory D. Dean Jr., 31, of Hopewell Junction, around 9:45 p.m. Sunday on Route 22 because the vehicle’s license-plate lamp was not working. While interviewing Dean, troopers noticed a handgun on the front seat, partially covered by a sweatshirt. The troopers determined the gun, a .40-caliber pistol, was legally registered and possessed. However . . .

when the troopers inspected the pistol, its magazine contained the nine bullets – New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act only allows seven bullets per magazine.

The cops charged Police charged Dean with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices and third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation. They’re misdemeanors, but the odds are he’ll go down—and lose his gun rights.

This is not going to play well in Poughkeepsie. Or Peoria; theblaze.com has picked up the story and they’re running with it. Judging by the comments underneath the posts, The People of the Gun are not feeling the love for NY’s SAFE Act. Nor should they. Nor will they.

The incident will put mag cap limits back in the spotlight. And presages more anti-pistol policing to follow. Not to mention the fact that the clock is ticking on mandatory “assault rifle” registration in the Empire State (due by April 15, 2014). The odds of widespread civil disobedience—and/or a Ruby Ridge-type incident—just went up.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

152 Responses to BREAKING: NY Permit Holder Arrested for 2 “Extra” Bullets

  1. avatarMatt in SD says:

    And…we’re off!

    • avatarDave says:

      To all those who have been supposing that cops will not enforce these unconstitutional reaching laws limiting law abiding citizens rights, feel a little different now? Cops WILL take your guns when they are TOLD to.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        This. Except for very rare circumstances, the police are NOT your friend.

        • avatarnatermer says:

          Some cops are friendly, some cops see you as scum that they can abuse to help fluff up their paycheck. Some just are huge assholes and became cops because this allows them to be huge assholes all the time.

          Trouble is that unless you know the cop personally you can’t tell which you are going to get. Plus being professional lairs is a huge part of their job.

          So you can’t trust any of them. You don’t know who you are dealing with.

          Sucks.

        • avatarDave says:

          Agree natermer.

          They consider every citizen they approach a questionable character and as a potential threat to their safety until otherwise indicated. We should do the same with them. It’s adversarial, but that’s what we have come to. Blame who you will, but it is what it is. Personally I blame the expansion of utilizing questionable, trumped up “probable cause” by LE to root out drug offenders. Broken tail lights for traffic stops and such. It’s their way around the 4th amendment and a way to punch up the stats. And let’s not forget “stop and frisk” by Nanny Bloomberg and his ilk.

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          Did they “fix” the law to allow cops in NY to carry full mags? Of course, it’s not a defense, but when this guy has his day in court, his counsel should ask the arresting officers if they were in compliance with the law when arresting the accused.

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        Might be some cops are looking the other way. Certainly not all, as this story proves.

      • avatarEPThorn says:

        Most cops in NY couldn’t give to shits about the new mag limit. The troopers, though…

        I’ve been waiting for this to happen. This is the best way to challenge the law. I wonder if they asked permission before they checked the mag, or if he told them he had 9 rounds? If they checked without PC it’ll probably get thrown out on the search alone.

        • avatarJWhite says:

          Having a gun (notice I didn’t say loaded) in the front seat, partially covered, and accessible to the driver….. Would be enough, I would think.

        • avatarAK says:

          @JWhite – Probably Cause for suspicion of what crime? If he was identified as a permit holder, then the act of having a firearm is not a crime.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I definitely read that in Matt Smith’s voice.

  2. avatarSertorius says:

    How many did the troopers have in their mags? I don’t think they’ve added any law enforcement exception yet.

    • avatardave c says:

      Good Questions. I never heard that they passed a loophole fix for this.

      • avatartim says:

        who can verify if each bullet would actually fire ?
        unconstitutional law…….do not infringe on the second amendment wtf

    • avatarBob says:

      Those troopers Nazis would have been high achievers in Germany during WWII.

    • avatarGilligan says:

      When it was first pointed out that the text of the law made every cop in New York a criminal unless they carry a revolver or a 1911, Governor Cuomo’s response was of course not. This law will never be enforced against law enforcement officers.

      Given that New Yorkers have been greatly restricted from having pistols since the Sullivan Law of 1911, the attitude of most police in that state is similar to the attitude of European nobility or Samurai towards peasants in possession of arms.

  3. avatarTom in Oregon says:

    I sincerely hope there are attorneys lined up waiting for a test case such as this.
    Defense fund anyone?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Pay for his lawyers? Maybe. Pay for his movers? Certainly.

    • avatarBob says:

      If one goes up Ill donate.

      • avatargregolas says:

        The case is ripe for jury nullification. since it’s upstate, the chance of smart jurors is more likely.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Dont judges frown upon that? And wouldn’t a prosecutor attempt to keep people like that from the jury.

        • avatarRalph says:

          @matt, judges HATE jury nullification and prosecutors will profile a jury in an attempt to keep pro-defense jurors off the panel.

          Besides, jury nullification occurs about as often as me hitting the Powerball jackpot. Juries do what they’re told. When the judge tells them “if you find that the defendant did such-and-such, you must hold so-and-so,” that’s what they’ll do.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          When the judge tells them “if you find that the defendant did such-and-such, you must hold so-and-so,” that’s what they’ll do.

          Ain’t that the truth. I was presiding juror for a civil trial not too long ago. Half of the sitting jurors were pretty sharp, rational folks. The other half, well, let’s just say that it took a fair bit of effort just to get their understanding of the judge’s instructions to line up with their sometimes-tenuous understanding of the facts. No way in hell any of them was going to deviate from the instructions Authority Figure had given them.

    • avatarC says:

      The lawyers probably beat him back to his house.

    • avatarDave says:

      Looks like he was driving on a suspended license, so this may not be the best case to pursue.

  4. avatarshawn says:

    He knew the law…simple as that. Get out of NY.

    • avatarFoster says:

      The solution is not to move out. The solution is to go all the way to the SCOTUS. To beat back these unconstitutional laws and set presidence so that the other unconstitutional laws in california, colorado, illinios, etc, will be overturned.

      • avatarint19h says:

        It’s “precedent”.

        And the trick is, if you lose at SCOTUS level, you set the wrong precedent and you get to go to prison. Would you, personally, willingly take the risk? If so, you are always welcome to carry nine in NY.

        • avatarihatetrees says:

          Given the widespread contempt within much of the Blue State political and legal community for CCW and firearms rights, there’s no end to the thousands of petty legal restrictions they’ll dream up.
          These restrictions are drips into the bathtub in which the left hopes to drown all 2A rights. They need to be selectively fought.
          Sure, SCOTUS could agree with these picayune rules that effectively gut McDonald and Heller. They do so at a huge cost to their own credibility. And don’t discount the huge political blow back to a de-facto reversal of McDonald/Heller.

        • avatarJR Bailey says:

          You’re missing the point: we are LONG PAST the point where there is any judicial protections for average folks, LONG PAST.

          A right delayed is a right denied. Period.

          This is just on step closer to Civil War and the sooner it happens the better for everyone: Social Progressives do NOT govern, they RULE and they RULE Unconstitutionally.

          You have apparently never read the Federalist Papers or the personal writings of the Founding Fathers, because they ALL clearly state that if a law is unconstitutional on the face of it, it is NOT a legal law and thus MUST be rejected and the populace REFUSE to follow it!

          I urge you to read the Founding Fathers so that you can finally understand that just because either a State Legislature or the Federal Legislature passes a law, it does NOT make that law constitutional.

      • Stop with the Phony Charade of SCOTUS,
        They will just decline to pick up the case and any others like No right to take your weapon out of YOUR HOME.

    • avatarmatt says:

      How do you ever win a war if you’re constantly retreating?

      • avatarRalph says:

        Read Sun Tzu.

        • avatarC says:

          Also, any time anyone has tried to invade Russia.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Well I dont see him proposing a way to cause NY to have a pyrrhic victory. And after a pyrrhic victory, you still need to attack to take advantage of the catastrophic victory the aggressor suffered.

    • avatarKvjavs says:

      Yeah, because moving is as easy as packing your bags and leaving… idiot.

  5. avatarRalph says:

    It figures that he was busted by NYS Troopers. You couldn’t find a worse bunch of jackbooted fascists if you were transported through space and time to Germany in the 1940s. Dean is lucky that he wasn’t beaten to a pulp, which the Gestapo boys have a habit of doing.

    • avatarSammy says:

      Ever encounter the Nassau County PoPo, Ralph?
      I guess the easiest way to abuse the law is to be the law.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Actually, I have encountered the Nassau Po-Po. They’re talented amateur Nazis compared to the professional Nazi Staties.

    • avatarOldLawman says:

      Oh, I don’t know…Try the NJSP ! They are disliked even by other LEOs.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      I’m going to kiss Kansas ground every morning.

  6. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I anxiously await this case. I’ll kick in $20 for his defense.

  7. avatarTed says:

    Thank GOD they got that criminal off the streets. What a threat to society! I’m nervous all the way from PA!

    /s

  8. avatarPCnotPC says:

    I guess it is better to be arrested for two extra rounds in your magazine than for two extra ounces in your Big Gulp.

    • avatarDee says:

      I would happily leave NY..That is a stupid law anyway..9 instead of 7 Really.
      And the mayor of NY is an idiot to boot.and good one pc not pc..lol

  9. avatarVB says:

    as an LEO I would respond the same way I do with open containers of alcohol outside the bar. Dump it out or come with me. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

    • avatarbgreene says:

      Thats how I work it also…. and its the best way to operate.

    • avatarDave says:

      Until you are ORDERED BY YOUR SUPERIORS to ENFORCE THESE LAWS! I don’t mean to make assumptions about you and your principles, but there will come a point where you will be forced to choose; then what will you do, obey your superiors or fall on the sword for your principles? Many LE officers will be put in this position, and my belief is the overwhelming majority will obey.

      • avatargregolas says:

        There’s a point at which principle trumps a job. There were several issues which, as a city prosecutor, I didn’t make a big deal of, so I was able to stay under the radar and do the right thing. There were others where I had to take a stand and say,”Make me!” both times the administration backed down. Then there was the issue of concealed carry, which was verboten. I just did it and never told them(even though I once asked permission but was denied). I decided going in that they couldn’t pay me enough to come home in a box. If it was a choice between self-defense and a job, I’ve always chosen to risk firing.

        • avatarDave says:

          With this issue and LE in general becoming so politicized, the ability of officers and prosecutors to exercise discretion will become difficult, if not impossible if it continues on the current path. It will be less so where you have elected sheriffs as opposed to politically appointed commissioners/chiefs. However, the general belief of some people that LE will never enforce unconstitutional laws/infringement of constitutional rights is naive at best.

  10. I hope he fights it all the way to SCOTUS.

  11. avatarJSIII says:

    Lawsuit in 3…2…1…..I hope this costs NY State millions…so much for not enforcing this portion of the law.

  12. avatarSAMWV1953 says:

    typical new york cucmo doing everything he can so he looks like a hero so he can run for president in 16 little does the ass clown know he will never get that positon he made to many enimes come election time he will see peiople in new york not happy with hiom..am so glad i do not live in new york state the police state

  13. avatarTackleberry says:

    And here we go.

  14. avatarmpow66m says:

    so much fot the NYS Trooper mea culpa to the people of NYS to not shoot them when 2014 rolls around and the consfication starts.

  15. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I’d hate to tell a judge someone had 2 two many rounds in his gun, the judge might say too many for what? This law only means something if a jury will convict, Randy

  16. avatarTravis says:

    I live here…

    Poughkeepsie is one of those cities where carrying is a good thing.

    Just so you’re aware, this city is VERY close to an earlier story here, where an SRO set a round off in a school. “Highland” and “Poughkeepsie” are right next to eachother.

  17. avatarmatt says:

    Didnt these same state troopers say recently in the article below to not blame them for the law, because they didnt pass it? Well if they’re supposedly against the law, why are they enforcing it?

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/new-york-state-troopers-police-benevolent-association-to-gun-owners-dont-hate-us-for-safe-act-enforcement/

    • avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

      Just a thought… did they enforce it to get a lawsuit rolling that could result in it’s repeal?

    • avatarRalph says:

      @matt, the Staties were also responsible for the first arrest under SAFE, back on March 20th. A wounded vet sold an “evil” assault weapon to an undercover.

      The NY State Gestapo is 100% behind SAFE. If they said otherwise, they lied.

      This is my shocked face.

      • avatarS_J says:

        It’s an interesting split between the Staties and the local upstate cops, many of whom have gone on record saying that they won’t enforce the provisions. All the guns go in my car unloaded though in the quite likely case that they’re lying through their teeth.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yep, I was thinking the very same thing.

      Cops are not our friends or allies. They’ve chosen which side of the issue they’re going to support. Ignore all protestations to the contrary.

      • avatarDesert Deputy says:

        You are so ignorant. Oh, and “protestations?” Really? Since when do gunsmiths get law degrees? You remind me of all the jailhouse lawyers we get.

        Just because some agencies have built a reputation with the public does not mean that we all support the laws the legislators make. No cop has ever made a law that restricts the rights of the citizen. I believe the word you are looking for is “congress.” So don’t go off saying the cops are not your friends or allies.

    • avatarDesert Deputy says:

      Because they still need a job and looking for a new one in this economy isn’t all that appealing. Unless they are looking to move out of NY…. which is not a bad idea.

  18. avatarJFP says:

    Sigh, you have to laugh. He’s stopped for a busted license plate light (aka bullshit law to generate revenue) and then arrested for having two too many rounds in his magazine aka another bullshit law.

    And cops wonder why people don’t like them so much these days.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Actually, a busted light (or any mechanical violation) is a fix-it ticket, not a fine unless you fail to fx it.

      You fix the light, show a cop and that’s that. No fine. No court. No problem.

      No revenue. Hell, it costs the state money to enforce it. Learn the rules before you pontificate on them.

      • avatarVerne says:

        Its best to be careful before assuming the way a law works in another state. In my state (Washington) a “fix it ticket” is a fine and not a very small one. They never really worry much if it gets fixed or not. Just send the court your money and all is well, until you get another ticket.

      • avatarJeremyR says:

        State police love to use those laws to generate revenue. The mindset is that most people who don’t keep their vehicles repaired also don’t keep insurance etc up to date. That is the whole reason most cops use those laws, or to aleviate boredom in the middle of a long shift.

  19. avatarmediocrates says:

    did he give them permission to search his car? under what probable cause. “Oh, I see you have a weapon. You are under suspicion of committing a crime.” I can’t wait for the free men of New York to start the fight against tyranny.

    • avatarTF82 says:

      He had a suspended license, which is a misdemeanor, meaning he was getting arrested whether he had the gun or not. Once they arrested him by the side of the road they were probably going to impound the car so an inventory search will cover the probable cause. It’s probably not a bad search. It is a bad law.

      • avatarmediocrates says:

        inventorying the car has to be done by the judiciary?

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        They may arrest for OWL, but it’s not mandatory.

        However, it does entitle them to do a search as a crime has been committed.

  20. avatarlittlegunguy says:

    Yep, if I’m not mistaken aren’t the NY troopers the ones that asked the people of New York, “please don’t shoot us. Were not the bad guys.” I guess they lied. All cops are government suck up bad guys…

  21. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    These days when I hear “Empire State” an image of the death star comes to mind. I am going to NYC for a conference next month. My hotel is being paid by those who invited me to speak. Otherwise, I will not leave anything but excrement in NYC. Train there, so no tolls. Hotel walking distance from the station (I checked). I’ll bring food and water with me in a backpack if I have to. Going to skip the usual gift for the kids. Not one penny. Suck it, NY.

  22. avatarKirk says:

    Blaze is good, but don’t give linkage to Lohud.com: They’re the bastards (Gannet Publishing) who released the addresses of NY license holders a few months back.

  23. avatarPaul53 says:

    Good! A court case! Send in the clowns!

  24. avatarwolfcheck says:

    These so-called “troopers” (thugs in uniform) deserve a really, really good beatdown.

  25. avatardwb says:

    I thought they were not going to enforce this … can you say, test case?

  26. avatarscottlac says:

    How about 7 in the magazine +1 in the hole? Does that violate the SAFE act? Or does it depend on the officer?

  27. avatarNow what says:

    Why didn’t the guy just strip 2 rounds from the mag before he stopped the car? I mean jeesh save the hassle you will face and comply for a mere 5 minutes, and then load’em back up? Those 2 rounds will be the most expensive ammo out there….

  28. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    This guy ignored the COMMIE states silly law, and now he will be the test case. He’s going to lose his permit forever and hopefully he won’t end up in jail. The COMMIES in NY are just as ruthless as the COMMIES in China, and anyone who lives by COMMIE rule will get screwed everytime.

  29. avatarDave says:

    He was driving on a suspended license, and my understanding is that folks who generally flout laws don’t make the best cases for advancing gun rights.

    • avatarcsmallo says:

      Because blindly following the edicts of a group of people of such low character and suspect morals that they became politicians makes a good person.

      He didn’t have the proper travel papers. He harmed no one. This used to be a free country.

      • avatarRKflorida says:

        His license had to be suspended for a reason. You can call it travel documents if you wish, but then you are saying all traffic laws should be abolished. Drunk driving, speeding, etc. A suspended license is the result of violating a traffic law.

        Now if we did away with all licensing to drive, that is another issue. Then you lock up people who violate traffic laws since you have no other way of stopping them from driving.

        • avatarChucky says:

          Most traffic laws are there because of the POSSIBILITY that someone will get hurt.

          Gun registration, background checks and confiscation are supposedly created because of the possibility that someone will get hurt.

          Is that really the best way to create laws?

        • avatarNigil says:

          I had a suspended license once for a while – without even knowing it – for having not paid one individual speeding ticket (75 in a 65) from another state.
          Does that mean I should be considered a potentially violent and dangerous criminal, and assumed more likely to be guilty than someone else? Also apparently here in IL you can have your license suspended just for not getting your car in to pass emissions testing (that’s what the officer pulling me over originally thought was the reason).

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          @Chucky: So are stop signs.

          If you want true anarchy, try Sommalia.

        • avatarCliff says:

          Don’t know about other states, but in Washington state you can have your license suspended for failure to pay court-mandated child support. Hardly makes you a criminal, just gives the social workers leverage on your paycheck.

    • avatarJonathan says:

      Perhaps. Although, some of the landmark civil rights decisions we take for granted today (and, oh yes, firearms freedom is the premiere civil rights action of our time) were handed down in cases fronted by less than pillars of the community:

      Mapp v. Ohio brought us inadmissibility of evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures. Ol’ Lady Mapp was something of a troublemaker and party girl.

      Gideon v. Wainwright brought us court-appointed lawyers and the public defender system. Gideon himself was a drifter, ex-con and lifelong loser.

      Escobedo v. Illinois ushered in the right to counsel during police interrogations and to cease questioning once you request a lawyer. This would be one’s right, and STRONGLY ENCOURAGED advice, to STFU. Danny Escobedo himself was a gang member, criminal, druggie and all around bad guy.

      Miranda v. Arizona, brought us the reading of our Miranda Rights. The accused must be advised of his Constitutional rights, among others, against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda himself was a juvenile delinquent, drifter and car thief.

      Your point’s well taken and I would prefer one Dick Heller and one Otis McDonald to a dozen Ernesto Mirandas; but what can you do but play the hand you’re dealt?

  30. avatarJonathan says:

    And the traffic stop heard ’round the world
    Was the start of the Revolution
    The Armed Intelligentsia were ready, on the move
    Take your PMAG, and take your AR
    Report to General LaPierre
    Hurry men, there’s not an hour to lose!

  31. Laws are meaningless without men to enforce them. These State Troopers took a stand for tyranny. They willingly put their boot on the throat of a free man and. They are oath breakers. PERIOD.

  32. Well, the revolution has to start sometime, somewhere. Rock and roll is here to stay. Tool up Gentlemen and Ladies, prepare to defend yourselves. We’re in for a bumpy ride.

  33. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Personally if I were the cop I’d have popped 2 rounds out of the magazine and informed him of the new law.

    He may lose his firearms privileges (wait, I thought they were rights?) in NY, but I believe he would have his rights if he moved to another state as long as he isn’t sentenced more than 1 year in prison.

    • avatarRalph says:

      It depends on the maximum sentence under the statute, not the sentence he receives. If he’s sentenced to no time on a statute with two years max, he’s banned.

      • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Being a firearms offense you might be right. I seem to remember being asked (either when purchasing or applying for my CCW) if I had been convicted of a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of over 1 year in prison in the last 3 years.

        Of course a felon can have his rights restored so obviously there are avenues to restore your rights after a misdemeanor. Maybe not in NY though.

        • avatardonny77 says:

          I actually believe there is a lawsuit about this. It is easier to restore your rights lost via a felony than a misdemeanor because there is no process in place.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Figures.

  34. avatarS_J says:

    Ah, the good ol’ “license plate light is out” NY stop. I got pulled over twice for this bullsh!t myself. One resulted in a maintenance ticket (no fee) after they couldn’t find anything else to pin on me. It has nothing to do with your plate light(s) and everything to do with searching your car for ANYthing they can ticket you for, especially if the driver is young and male. Case in point.

    And yeah, pulling out the pistol to eject a couple rounds would’ve been a good way to get ventilated. State troopers are bored, trigger happy thugs up here.

  35. avatarp35flash says:

    Many of you probably don’t pay any attention to other SCOTUS cases that don’t have anything to do with firearms. There is conjecture that Lawrence v. Texas was set up by people who wanted to get the issue involved in that case to the SCOTUS. I could totally see this being a setup to get standing for a lawsuit.

  36. avatarPat says:

    Any cop who would enforce this travesty is a dirty effing pig and traitor. I hope they die. Couldn’t even warn the guy, or just ignore? Arrest? 9 bullets instead of seven. Crazy, evil, libtard (democrat) insanity.

    • Never give the Enemy a quick easy way out.

      Pain and Suffering, ROIDS, Kneecaps, Prostate Cancer and so forth.
      if they keep it up . WELL you know what they do to the Mafia.

      • avatarPat says:

        I never said HOW I wanted them to die. Being broken on the Catherine Wheel during the middle ages was a VERY nasty way to go. A quick painless death…..for now.

  37. avatarAl says:

    ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

  38. avatarPablo says:

    The problem is that even Justice Scalia states that state and federal governments can pass laws controlling the possession and carrying of guns. The question is will the courts say this law goes too far in restricting a right.

    I am afraid, they will say he could carry a gun and a reasonable amount of ammunition based on the State of NY’s elected representatives.

    What we should fear is that he loses and the other courts challenges are lost creating a precedent for states to define ‘reasonable, and the federal court to have to set a lower limit.

    NY ‘wanted’ to say 5 rounds period. They settled on 7.

    Frankly I with we had at least 10… NYC limits you to 5!!!

  39. avatarPablo says:

    I believe 7-shot guns will be all the rage in NY soon. The M&P Shield with 7 round magazines will be the norm.

    Here in NY at one shop there were 40+ on back order a few weeks ago.

    • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I just picked up a Taurus PT709 so I have at least one firearm that’s legal in NY.

  40. avatarJacen says:

    Shall we begin

  41. avatarAccur81 says:

    Truly sad.

  42. avatarasia331 says:

    Sad day; assuming this is the whole story and no other violations took place I’m going to bet the presumably good Peace officer involved will wish he had never checked that magazine. If the weapon was properly registered what’s the probable cause to even have picked it up? Bad outcome is the most one can hope for when attempting to enforce bad law.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      You have to pick it up and read the li’l numbers to verify that it IS registered.

    • avatarBill F says:

      They did away with the 7 round magazine capacity limit. 10 round magazines okay, but only loaded with 7 rounds.

  43. avatarAragorn says:

    The cop was a douchebag for citing the guy instead of giving him a warning.
    My money is on the cops in NY being given incentives to bust people for breaking
    the new anti-gun laws.

  44. avatarLarry says:

    Many lawsuits already in place and,the lawyers involved are pleased with how they are going.see below.

    And everyone worried about the cases and instant progress just needs to remember two things and you should cheer up nicely. First, a NY Supreme Court Justice has already signed an Order to Show Cause requiring the State to demonstrate that the Safe Act is constitutional. That Order is still in effect. The judge would not have signed that order unless there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Second, if the cases against the Safe Act being pursued by the Tresmonds were weak, they would have been disposed of quickly like the Message of Necessity case. That case moved very quick because it was meritless. The mere fact the Tresmond cases are still going strong and the State is completely unable to get either dismissed is because the cases are excellent. If the State with unlimited resources needs more time to fight thirteen lawyers working for free, what does that tell you about how strong the cases againat the Safe Act are? Please keep the faith. We are going to win.

  45. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    January 1, 2012, 1:30am. I got pulled over for a burned out license plate bulb. Fortunately I had quit drinking around 10 o’clock and was stone sober by then, but word to the wise, if you’re going to drink and drive on New Years eve, better check you license plate bulbs.

    And if you’re going to drive on a suspended license, leave your gun at home, or at least hide it or maybe take the two rounds out so you won’t go to jail. Stupid law or no, these laws have some serious teeth.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      I take issue with “word to the wise,” sir.

      Anyone who drives significantly intoxicated is unwise, and deserves to go from sixty to zero in zero point zero seconds with the aid of an immovable object.

      Let the taxi operator check THEIR license plate light.

  46. avatarJoe says:

    Thank you New York. The world is so much safer now!

  47. avatarglenux says:

    I wonder how many bullets the state troopers had in their magazines. Every New York Citizen has a right to know.

    I would have demanded to know.

    If they had more than the legal limit, then I would have resisted their arrest.

  48. avatarglenux says:

    “The odds of widespread civil disobedience—and/or a Ruby Ridge-type incident—just went up.”

    I agree. These new laws are going to have unintended negative consequences they did not anticipate, and the LEO’s are going to be right in the middle of it.
    Picture does not look goo for some of them.

  49. avatarIdahoPete says:

    Only way left for upstate NYers to end this crap: If you find yourself on a jury for someone accused of this “crime”, refuse to vote for a conviction. Hang the jury verdict. Go to the FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Assoc) website for more info, but be sure to NOT tell the judge or your fellow jurors that you are refusing to convict based on the 2nd Amend. The judge will throw your butt off the jury immediately. Instead, act like a typical low-info voter and say “I just didn’t FEEL they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t explain it, that’s just how I FEEL.” Judges and lawyers LOVE stupid jurors, so you don’t need any explanation, and they won’t toss you off the jury for being a Constitutionalist. NEVER mention the Constitution during the jury questioning process.

    This is what happened eventually during Prohibition – juries stopped convicting bootleggers.

  50. avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

    I feel safer already. Thanks New York for stopping this terrorist.

  51. avatargunlover says:

    some day soon the people will have roast pig for dinner

  52. avatarDerek says:

    “…third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation. ”

    Seriously? WTF does that even mean?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      He was driving on a suspended license, and that’s the charge.

      1. Aggravated unlicensed operation of a
      motor vehicle in the third degree. (a) A person is guilty of the offense
      of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third
      degree when such person operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway
      while knowing or having reason to know that such person’s license or
      privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of
      obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the
      commissioner is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the
      commissioner.
      (Source)

  53. avatartony says:

    Yes, that’s the charge. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. The overzealous trooper did NOT need to enforce that. I’m an oath keeper… I’ll never enforce such unconstitutional bull shit

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.