Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSAFE act takes it's first gun off the street
Have fun in jail, dickhead.
NEW LEBANON, N.Y. - A man has been charged under the New York State SAFE Act after troopers found he had a handgun in his car with the loaded magazine containing nine rounds of ammunition, rather than the limit of seven rounds.
State Police issued a traffic stop for 31-year-old Gregory Dean of Hopewell Junction on Route 22 in New Lebanon Sunday night for an inadequate license plate lamp.
While interviewing Dean, troopers observed a handgun on the front passenger seat that was partially covered by a sweatshirt. Investigation revealed a Smith and Wesson semi-automatic .40 caliber handgun was legally possessed, but police say it was revealed that the loaded magazine contained nine rounds of ammunition, rather than the limit of seven rounds, as required by the SAFE Act.
[link:http://www.news10.com/story/22236238/troopers-make-safe-act-arrest-in-new-lebanon|
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)Since NY SAFE didn't exempt police.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)How was it "on the street"? I never understood that expression, since that would mean his cell phone and keys were also "on the street". The phrase sounds like a cop slang term now used as a weasel word or using slanting language for propaganda.
Since it was legally possessed, we know that the possessor doesn't fit the demographic of the typical murder or robber.
BTW, the officer was likely committing the same crime because the SAFE Act does not exempt on duty police.
http://firearms.hoffmang.com.s3.amazonaws.com/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/28homicide.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
http://books.google.com/books?id=dCdaaJ-0gPQC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=90+percent+of+murderers+have+criminal+records&source=bl&ots=Cv0fbu9O9j&sig=Faf4M4YJDKczkTug37z1N48oNjk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0eRUfaEDYrM9QTn-4GQAw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=90%20percent%20of%20murderers%20have%20criminal%20records&f=false
You are celebrating someone going to jail for a victimless crime that is on the level having ornate smoking pipe. That is something authoritarians do, not liberals.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...a rather appropriate victory for the... umm... anti-rights crowd.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The right to bear arms does not include the right to have more than a 7 round clip in NY. No rights were violated, but a law was broken.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)Rights stand apart from the law. Rights, being attributes of humanity, are innate. They do not require the acknowledgement or assent of government. It should be among the most important roles of government to secure and protect the rights of the people.
IMHO, the limit of 7 was chosen and legislated in a capricious fashion and compromises the right to self-defense. Yes a law was broken.
Hope your weather is good. Keep your batteries charged.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I understand why some may find the limit of 7 rounds per clip to be capricious. It is definitely reactionary, but most laws are. Personally, I consider it reasonable, especially when there is no restriction as to how many guns or clips one may own,or in this case, carry in the vehicle. Laws are made to establish standards that most consider reasonable. I'm sure this case will be a test for the courts about reasonable standards versus an individual's perception of personal rights.
Staying dry in DC at present, on a long road trip, while engine get's an overhaul and new batteries are installed, along with long awaited wind generator. Yeah!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)If you're in DC, please know to avoid the Wilson bridge section of the beltway as it is a drawbridge (which often opens) and carries the Southeast beltway over the river. Traffic can backup for miles if open during rush hour. (BTW Friday evening rush hour starts about 1:30 PM and goes til 7 or 8 depending on problems.)
As JFK said, DC is city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency.
Cheers
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But I'm having a fun time in this strange city, where I have quite a few friends and family. Took the Metro yesterday for the first time and went exploring on my own. So different to NYC subway or London's Tube or Paris Metro. Felt like I'd dropped into some sci-fi world. Is this a subway or a nuclear bomb shelter?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)Considering some DC mentalities, I'd say, yes.
If you like that feel and are looking for some 'off-the-beaten' side trips, consider the Greenbrier, about a 4 hour drive from DC.
http://www.greenbrier.com/Activities/The-Bunker.aspx
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...is the Workhouse Prison Museum at Lorton.
http://workhousemuseums.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=8
Lorton was a key point of interest in Women's Suffrage.
Or hey, stop at the NRA in Fairfax. I hear they have a museum.
premium
(3,731 posts)The cops took down a very dangerous criminal, he had 9 rounds instead of 7 rounds, stop the presses, a desperado was apprehended and NYS is now that much safer.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Probably fixed his tail light too. Don't try to make a bigger deal of it than it was.
IMO it's a good law, just as NO TEXTING while driving is, and hands free cellphone use. Makes us all a little safer.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)In the possession of a criminal while he was driving down the street.
Now it is the hands of the police, and will probably be melted down for scrap. This is one gun that we can be certain will never murder anyone.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Michael Moorcock and Blue Oyster Cult notwithstanding.
Would you have us believe rounds 8 and 9 somehow made that gun more dangerous?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The hands of a criminal. He had a license and it was registered
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)So he only broke one law instead of three, he's still guilty of a firearms violation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If so, you are a criminal. A felon under federal law and many states. His was only a misdemeanor.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and Barbara Luisi be in federal prison for violating the 1968 Gun Control Act?
http://portlandtribune.com/component/content/article?id=14539
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)She was a Washington resident. She gave it to Ceasefire Oregon in Portland to a Oregon resident. Interstate transfer between non FFL holders violates the 1968 Gun Control Act. Any violation of the Gun Control Act is punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. I think if someone is going to advocate for stricter gun laws, they should be the first ones to be familiar with current federal gun control laws.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer
clffrdjk
(905 posts)They without a doubt had more than 7 rounds in the mag and were not exempted from the safe act what of him/her?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...it inevitably creates more "criminals," as some people who were previously law-abiding elect not to comply with them. This is one of those laws that thousands and thousands of people will ignore...but which is not enough of an egregious provocation that public civil disobedience is likely. It'll just be quietly ignored and the occasional unlucky sap will get busted.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'll understand if you remain silent rather than try to have it both ways.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Responsible gun owner ..... who became irresponsible. Happens a lot!
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)You're a gun owner. Have you ever loaded more than seven rounds? If so, do you feel that you acted irresponsibly? Will you avoid doing so in the future? Do you think that it should be illegal to load more than seven rounds? If so, why?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)This gun hugger intentionally chose to ignore the law....... and got caught.
I'd say that's IRRESPONSIBLE....... and he got what he deserved........period.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I asked you if you think this law is necessary, and why. You typically chose not to answer.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)...... do you think you have the right to ignore a law because you don't agree with it?
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)No. I don't.
I answered your question. Now you answer mine.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Just kidding.
No, I don't think the 7 rd. mag law makes much sense.
But I do think universal background checks and registration do.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)He/she either does not even attempt to answer, or chooses to respond with a question. I had a ridiculous exchage with him/her the other day where he/she refused to answer a simple question. A question even more simple than yours.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Ah, yes! A very "simple" question!
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)sarisataka
(18,821 posts)Than summary execution. I have seen it put forth quite recently that some on du would not object to that in this case.
Makes me wonder...
wercal
(1,370 posts)By what authority did the police take the gun, unload the magazine, and count the rounds in the magazine?
The stop was for a light bulb.
The gun was legally carried.
So how come the police get to 'investigate' the gun?
Does this mean that no matter what you are stopped for, the police can fish around you and your car looking for violations?
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)If asked "May I search your car" and he said yes.
Another possibility is if the gun was in plain view the police may have the right to inspect it. I am not sure if NY law would permit that.
wercal
(1,370 posts)....but why on earth would the police have the right to 'inspect' it.
If I'm walking down the street, my backpack is in plain view...but not open for inspection.
Alot of women's purses are in plain view in their car...but the police can't just start rummaging through them, for a burnt out light bulb violation.
So I don't necessarily agree with 'perfectly legal' one bit. A burned out light bulb should not be an invitation for a fishing expedition.
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)if the law allows. Here in Mn I must tell an officer that I am armed and show my permit, if asked. Other states you have to do so without being asked.
I assume NY allows inspection of a visible firearm to check compliance with the SAFE Act. If not, this will get tossed in 15 seconds in court.
wercal
(1,370 posts)"I assume NY allows inspection of a visible firearm to check compliance with the SAFE Act".
It presumes that the passage of a law (SAFE act) supercedes all prior rulings on searches and probable cause. How is that possible?
Now, the only gun related charge was the round count...so I can only assume that he possessed and transported the gun legally. So why the further 'investigation' of the gun? Why perform a search and take out the magazine?
Or maybe a better question (which apparently gets a shorter answer) what can't the police do, when they pull you over.
btw - the gun was in plain sight...so there is nothing to discuss about what states require disclosure, etc. But so what. If its legal, why do the police get to take out the magazine and start counting? How is this different from doing a roadside body cavity search?
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)nor argue them in court. I merely am thinking of a plausible explanation for searching. -
I do not know if states that allow unopened alcohol in a vehicle give the police the right to examine the bottles to see if they are open or not. It would be a similar principle; whether right or wrong would require a challenge on 4th Amendment grounds.
Or he gave permission which would make everything moot.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)The "plain sight" rule recognizes that no citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to unconcealed items within a vehicle in police custody.[State v. Gowans, 500 P.2d 641 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972)]
The rounds weren't in Plain Sight!
A woman's purse is in Plain Sight! but the police can't rummage through it with no probable cause, right?
The lid to my trunk is in Plain Sight! but they don't get to go in there either, without cause.
Hell - the door to my car ashtray is in Plain Sight!, as is the door to the glove compartment. Guess what - no probably cause, no search.
What do you think they were searching for, when they took the magazine out of this gun? Extra light bulbs for the guys plate light? Did they 'smell drugs' in the gun? What caused them to search the gun?
I guess what I am trying to say: The gun was in Plain Sight! but the rounds most certainly weren't in Plain Sight!.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)And they're so easy to spot!
I believe the officers had the legal right to "secure and inspect" the pistol while they checked the driver's concealed weapons permit.
Oops! There goes his gun hugger "authorization card"!
wercal
(1,370 posts)By them I assume you mean people with a libertarian bent, who don't partiucularly approve of unfettered police power, no matter whether or not is satisfies my particular ends justifying the means cause of the day?
Instead of implying I'm one of 'them', why don't you cogently explain to me how Plain Sight! applies to pulling the magazine out of a pistol and counting the rounds.
And, once you are done with that, please explain to me how this Plain Sight!...and dig deeper argument a) is somehow different than other case law that prevents it b) won't lead down a slippery slope that allows the police to search whatever the hell they want, anytime.
I bet you won't.
I bet you insult me instead.
ps...I edited my post, to include your edited post:
"I believe the officers had the legal right to "secure and inspect" the pistol while they checked the driver's concealed weapons permit.
Oops! There goes his gun hugger "authorization card"!
Why did you put forth an argument (well, opinion)...and retract it just to leave the insult?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There aren't too many.
I can count them on the toes of one foot.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Well, certainly!
When you secure a weapon, the first thing you do is clear the weapon ......... RIGHT?!!!
Then you check that the concealed permit holder is carrying it legally........RIGHT?!!!!
Voilà!
1) Clearing a weapon doesn't involve counting the ammunition.
2) Nowhere in the story does it mention that this guy had a concealed cary permit - so any speculation about what the police are allowed to do to concealed carry holders in NY is unwarranted.
I'm going to help you out here. The police are going to say they dropped the magazine 'for their safety'...and then they accidentally on purpose noticed how many rounds were in the magazine.
Here is a quote from another story:
"When troopers made the weapon safe, it was revealed that the loaded magazine contained nine rounds of ammunition;"
http://www.registerstar.com/news/article_77675088-bc02-11e2-a7cb-001a4bcf887a.html
Absolutely nothing to do with inspecting the gun for some sort of compliance with concealed carry rules. Just a B.S. 'safety' excuse.
Some will accept that explanation.
I call B.S....because that's exactly what it is: B.S.
I've known alot of cops. Some are good, some are bad...but the one thing I know with 100% certaintly - they are not all good. There will always be bad apples...so why on earth would you accept that type of BS argument, even if you agree with the outcome? What happens when the bad apple cop starts to use the 'safety' argument.
Am I exagerrating? In my town (Topeka), a man was having a medical problem, and sitting catatonic in his vehicle in a private parking lot where he worked. He was unresponsive, but had given up his keys, so there was no danger of him driving. The sheriff deputy came out...and she proceeded to tase him, pin him to the ground, cuff him, and call the coroner....because she had killed him.
The sheriff went on the radio a few days later. When questioned about the deputy's performance, he screamed into the microphone "she was trying to HELP him".
Another BS excuse.
I shy away from accepting these BS excuses, because the next time, I might be on the recieving end of a warrantless search, or the taser gun.
But go right ahead and ridicule me (and imply I'm a troll) for not going along to get along.
(BTW, this has nothing to do with Plain Sight!, as the visibility of the gun did not lead to the suspicion of contraband or criminal activity. That's why they have to use the B.S. 'safety' argument. So Plain Sight! is dumb and should be left out of it for now. (I suspect you have realized that, which is why I am the only one who keeps bringing up Plain Sight!)
rdharma
(6,057 posts).....verification of a concealed weapon's legality is!
You ain't in Kansas, Dorothy!
wercal
(1,370 posts)1) The weapon wasn't concealed
2) Nothing in the story indicates that this person had a concealed carry permit
3) You are only speculating that NY has a law which allows police to search weapons, because concealed carry holders have somehow waived their rights against illegal searches...but its pure speculation, and left unproven, its pure fantasy.
How on earth have you gone from Plain Sight! to Concealed! in one thread? Stay on task.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)You can't drive around NY with a loaded gatt on your passenger seat without a CCW!
I guess you missed the comment about Dorothy in Kansas!
No I didn't miss the point about Dorothy in Kansas...frankly even though I am not a native Kansan, I always get a chuckle at the infantile habit people have of condensing the entire state into one movie....and generally ignore it. BTW, if you care to be educated, even in Kansas (in most jurisdictions) I can't carry an unlocked pistol in the car either.
But on to your theory.
Let me get this straight. You don't know that this guy had a concealed permit...but are assuming he did, because he couldn;t possibly carry it otherwise. Ok, fair enough...you've got a 50% chance of being right...the story doesn't mention a permit either way.
Then you assume, without actually looking it up, that cc holders in NY have voluntarily subjected themselves to a warrantless search, whenever the hell the police see them doing...well...carrying a pistol. So they could just walk up to any person who carries, and demand to do an inspection. Ok...I'm gonna have to tell you that the odds on that are a little lower than 50%.
But this is all red herring stuff.
As I understand it, you are ok with warrantless searches of people you don't agree with (gun owners), because it suits your own agenda. I would pay money to see the look on your face when the search doesn't suit your agenda.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)when cops found it rolling around on his front passenger seat during a traffic stop.... that's enough for me.
If you want to TRY defend some paranoid irresponsible a-hole's right to violate the law. Carry on!
I just see him as another dumb shit who shouldn't be carrying!
I'm sorry the constitution gets in the way of your agenda.
You have used the 'dismissive argument'.
One more point of education before I hit the road:
That's not a good argument.
HolyMoley
(240 posts)Even if there was or wasn't a consent to search, some states have a duty to inform law (that the person being stopped, questioned is armed and has a CCW permit), at which point the officer can take possession of said firearm without consent or permission.
SOP would dictate the officer engage the safety, drop the magazine, clear the chamber, and lock the slide to the rear.
Magazines for semi-auto pistols typically have "witness holes" or some other means of visually determining how many rounds are in magazine without having to unload it.
For the record, I believe that the NY law (and all mag capacity laws), is bullshit and over bearing, but the guy fucked up and got caught.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Although I'm not familiar with the CCW laws in ALL states, it's a common requirement to identify yourself as a CCW carrier if you have a weapon with you.
"For the record, I believe that the NY law (and all mag capacity laws), is bullshit and over bearing, but the guy fucked up and got caught. "
I agree with you on the above statement.
wercal
(1,370 posts)because
1) The gun was in plain sight
2) Nothing in the story indicates that he had a concealed carry permit anyway.
And I understand they cleared the weapon for their safety...but since when does that involve counting rounds? Shouldn't the officer be looking in the chamber, and not at the magazine?
Keep in mind, this man was stopped at night - the whole reason for the stop was his plate light was out. Now let me ask you, if you were standing on the side of the road at night, and I handed you a weapon to clear. Would noticing the rounds through the witness holes be 'incidental' to the clearing of the weapon...or would you have to get your flashlight out and examine the magazine - which last I checked wasn't at all part of clearing the weapon.
Sure the guy screwed up...and he didn't have a license either.
But I say the police also screwed up, and went beyond their authority, when they used clearing the weapon as a BS excuse to investigate his round count.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Is that what your saying? Sure sounds like it!
wercal
(1,370 posts)They would never had even had the opportunity to make a determination on what his was or was not allowed to do....if it weren't for the illegal search in the first place.
I don't think you understand that I don't care too much about the 7 round limit (although it is a fairly foolish law)....but what I do care about is the police using the new law as license to violate constitutional rights.
I have another prediction. The police (and prosecutor) will be smart enough to figure this out, and they will revise the charges. I seriously doubt this guy has a NY concealed carry...and they will in fact charge him with illegally having it in his front seat. Open carry is fine...but not within arm's reach in a vehicle. They will use this back-dated charge to justify the further search of the gun, and the discovery of the violation of the SAFE law.
Just keep this in mind the next time you get pulled over for a burnt out license plate light. Do you really believe the police care about that light? They don't. They are on a fishing expedition - and you've been targeted.
Full disclosure - I've been pulled over twice for the license plate light. The first time, the officer demanded that I open my trunk. I was young and obedient and I complied. All he found were the Christmas presents we were taking home (by 'we' I mean my whole family that was in the car during this police infringement). I finally grew a spine and refused to open/unwrap the presents when he demanded that. I don't know what keyed him to me...or what the hell he thought I had in my trunk, but I didn't appreciate the fishing expedition, or the 30 minute wait while he consulted with other officers about what he could do to detain me or search further. He let me go.
Second time, I left a bar...got 25 yards down the road, and there he was. Obviously he was interested in getting a dui arrest. Well, he didn't get one with me, and he threw me back into the water, and went on his way looking for better fish.
So what I am saying is something that should be fairly fucking obvious. Ninety percent of crime in this country goes undetected and unprosecuted, because we have constitutional protections that prevent the police from making random searches of people's property...and that is exactly how it should be.
I'm sorry if the constitution bothers you.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It would take zero effort to notice a 10-round magazine with a big "10" engraved on it, and very little more effort to see visually confirm a round behind that hole.
wercal
(1,370 posts)In NY, you are still allowed to have a 10 round magazine, if it manufactured before the law. So noticing that its a 10 round magazine should be no cause for alarm, and no indication that anything criminal was going on.
And the round wasn't behind that '10' hole...there were 9 rounds counted. So it was either a magazine with a hole for each round, or the police took the rounds out.
And how easy would it have really been to see the round behind the witness hole, or even read the stamped numbers? It was night (remember the pretense for the stop was a burnt out license plate light). And, if the police were clearing the weapon, the eyes should be looking down the chamber. I think, on the side of the road at night, it would be very difficult to see the rounds and stamps, without using a flashlight and very deliberately inspecting the magazine, actually.
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)Glocks are very user-friendly and have a hole for each round nicely numbered. It is easy to tell the exact number of rounds at a glance
Other types may be similar or only have windows for when you are getting low. Unloading the magazine is the only way to get an exact count
wercal
(1,370 posts)sarisataka
(18,821 posts)to check ID. Dropping a mag like the glock and passing the light over it would be more than enough to see the rounds. It is not unlikely the officer would have a glock so would be very familiar with it.
Now if it was one that only had a window every 5th round, we have a very different situation. The exact wording of NY law would be critical to determine if unloading the magazine is reasonable.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've had a police officer confiscate my weapon during a traffic stop. They placed it on the hood without doing anything to it.
You shouldn't be fucking around with someone else's pistol of who knows what manufacture/origin without a clearing barrel in front of it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)Later in the thread he completely abandons his plain sight argument and presumes that the police have permission to empty the magazine of any concealed carry holder....even though the story doesn't mention that he has a carry permit, and even though it is ridiculous to think that a carry permit subjects you to random searches.
In short, he's all over the map...and his dislike of guns trumps all logic or 4th Ammendment protections.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've always wanted an inside-out gun.
geek_sabre
(731 posts)Megalo_Man
(88 posts)Don't offer any information than necessary when pulled over or stopped by police, ever.
IF THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO SEARCH YOU, THEY DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION!
rdharma
(6,057 posts)And thanks for the "helpful" information to avoid arrest when violating the law!
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)or do we not like that Amendment either...
rdharma
(6,057 posts).... when you got a loaded gatt in plain sight on the passengers seat in NY in a traffic stop!
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)that says you do not have to talk to the police
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Illegal search and fishing expeditions........
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)Unless mandated by law, you do not have tell the nice officer anything. If it is an incriminating question you do not have to answer at all.
The fourth would come into play if the officer said "May I search your car?" You can say no. It may not prevent him from searching anyway, depending on the circumstances, but you are not required to give permission to the search.
If the law says police may examine the magazine of a firearm in view, well then you are SOL if you can't count too good. Can such search be challenged? Don't know. Someone, maybe this guy, will 'volunteer' to be the test case.
I don't have the time or money to be a court-rat so I try to stay on good terms with Officer Friendly.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)The Fifth doesn't kick in until you are actually charged with a crime. Before that...... if you choose to be silent......you'll be considered an a-hole and will get more scrutiny!
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
384 U.S. 436
Miranda v. Arizona
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
if you are detained at a traffic stop you most assuredly are in police custody, however temporary and informal it may be.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Really?!!!!
May I leave now?
sarisataka
(18,821 posts)I agree something in plain sight gives ras to search. But if a person has hidden contraband they are not obligated to admit that even if directly asked. A positive answer would give ras and therefore be self incriminating.
I also realize people will simply lie, even about items in sight... No one actually does drugs, they are just holding them for someone else.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Four months ago, he could have legally had ten rounds in his magazine. There would have been no charge for the handgun. Was he a danger to society then? Is he a danger to society now? Would he be more dangerous to society if he had in his possession ten loaded magazines for his pistol, each one with seven rounds in it? That would be perfectly legal.
Seven rounds in magazine = solid, responsible citizen. Nine rounds in magazine = dangerous criminal.
Anyone who can't see what Mickey-Mouse bullshit this is is an idiot.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)100 years ago he could have legally owned an unregistered machine gun.
100 200 years ago he could have legally owned a slave.
Times change.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)In 1913? Not in this country, he couldn't.
Are you honestly making a moral equivalence between two extra rounds in a pistol and the enslavement of human beings? Please tell me that you aren't.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)And yes, 100 years from now we will look back at the proliferation of deadly weapons similar to how we looked at slavery.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)So a pistol with seven rounds in it isn't a deadly weapon but one with nine rounds is?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)But we've got to start somewhere.
Someday it will be one round.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)But we've got to start somewhere.
Someday it will be one round.
... for affirming the existence of the slippery slope. I've been told by some here that it's a paranoid delusion and that "nobody wants to take your guns away." I guess they're either mistaken or lying, huh?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)You think no rounds is fine for carrying around. Let's have a little honesty, shall we?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I've thought a lot about this issue, and one should be sufficient in most situations to provide a little sense of security. Think about it.
I sometimes find myself in situations where I think it might be smart to have that little extra backup, just in case. And one round should be plenty.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I think you thought poorly.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I sometimes find myself in situations where I think it might be smart to have that little extra backup, just in case. And one round should be plenty.
... this is a dangerously misinformed opinion, especially re handguns. "Sufficient in most situations"? What situations are those? Even if you hit your target, the fabled "one shot stop" is exactly that: fabled. People can absorb multiple hits with handgun rounds and still be on their feet, still attacking.
The conventional wisdom about firearm capacity is that no one using a firearm in extremis has ever said, "Gee, I wish I didn't have so many bullets in my gun."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But I could point the gun at them and probably pull the trigger if I felt I had no other option. If that didn't work, then I probably shouldn't have had the gun to begin with. But that's just me. OTOH, I can't imagine anyone needing more than 7 rounds in a SD situation. Seems like a recipe for disaster.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)If you couldn't shoot someone, even to save your own skin, then you shouldn't have a gun. I think we all agree on that. In that scenario, you're just arming your assailant.
Recipe for disaster? The disaster is already unfolding, or else you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have drawn the gun in the first place. Once you have committed yourself to using deadly force for the purpose of self-preservation, I can see no reason why you should be handicapped by an absurdly arbitrary legal limitation. As mentioned above, no one in extremis has ever said "It's a good thing I don't have too many bullets in my gun."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)but I wouldn't want to be tempted to keep shooting them. I wouldn't fire the gun if wasn't absolutely sure where the bullet was going. There's way too much overkill and collateral damage out there already.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 12:48 AM - Edit history (2)
... you had to shoot someone, you would need to be able to keep shooting them until they stopped doing whatever they were doing to make you shoot them in the first place. And it had better be something that was about to cause you grievous bodily harm possibly resulting in death, or else you should never have shot them in the first place.
In your scenario, if the single bullet that you fired failed to stop them, and the odds are very great that it would (see "one shot stops" , they would carry on doing what they had been doing, and you would quite probably end up dead.
Not a good plan. Not at all.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But shooting someone once or multiple times is never a good plan. Best to avoid the whole situation. If I ever carried a gun, it would be for the sole purpose of feeling safer, not being safer. So that wouldn't be a good plan either. I'm only talking about carrying here, btw, not home defense.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)
I've heard people say similar things about carrying an unloaded gun, to "scare off" an assailant without having to shoot -- needless to say, that's also a very bad idea.
Re "feeling" vs. "being" safer: It seems to me that feeling safe without actually being safe is a dangerous condition. False confidence, etc.
I think everyone agrees that avoiding danger is the best plan. I heard a firearms instructor tell a student who had asked about the best gun to carry when jogging in an area where people have been attacked by feral dogs, "Jog somewhere else."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Fact is, people who carry do so because they believe it is safer than not carrying, ie. they feel safer. There are times when that may turn out to be true and times when it may turn out to be more dangerous. The anecdotal evidence points both ways. I would never carry an unloaded weapon for potential SD, but if the gun leaves my possession, I want to be the one who emptied it and having one shot makes that more likely. I'll take those odds, you decide for yourself. But if seven aren't enough, you probably shouldn't be carrying.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)That's where we part ways. How on earth can anyone determine in advance how many rounds will be "enough" for a potential violent encounter whose particulars are absolutely unknown? A woman hiking in Canada was killed by a pack of coyotes. She was unarmed, but had she been armed, would seven rounds have been "enough" for her to defend herself?
Don't be too worried about giving up your gun while it still has rounds in it. The odds are very slim that someone will try to take your gun away from you while you are actively engaged in shooting at them. The far more likely scenario is that they will either shoot back if they can or run like fucking hell. An assailant without a firearm who persists in attacking a victim who is actively shooting will eventually be stopped by total physical disability or death. That's essentially the whole point of having enough rounds in your gun.
The worst-case scenario is that you fire your one round at a knife-wielding or bat-wielding attacker and either miss or cause a non-fatal, non-disabling injury. The attacker will then proceed to cut you up or bash your head in.
For the third time, I will repeat the old saw that no one who has had to use a firearm in self defense has ever said, "Gee, I think I have too many bullets in my gun."
It was not legal to own a slave in New York even 200 years ago.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Responsible?
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Responsible?
With seven, it's legal. With nine, it isn't.
Responsible? Yes, with a drop-safe firearm in a solid holster, as long as it isn't left in the vehicle when the owner leaves the vehicle.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)There goes the "precious"!
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Would you like to have a law like this in your state?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)were to pass something like that, the backlash against them and the polluters, developers, and McMansion lovers that put them there just might be worth it.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)And every state in the USA.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Why can't you answer a simple question?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)NEW LEBANON isn't exactly Hell's Kitchen but I'm sure everyone feels safer there now.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Irrational might come to mind. Juvenile would be another one.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Just saying.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)according to the article.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the gun was still legal.
Statistically, he at least a couple of years of college. Since it is a blue state, it is fairly decent chance you bashed a fellow Democrat.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cletus
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/54bigsym.pdf
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Serve The Servants
(328 posts)That's the only reason I can think of as to why you keep calling him a dickhead.
That, or you just generally have a dislike for gun owners. Would I be incorrect in assuming that?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Of course the magazine charge could be thrown out.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)all is good?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)That's why I'm for universal background checks and registration.
I don't think that's too much of a burden to enjoy my hobby RESPONSIBLY!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)You are responsible for the gun violence, pain and injury caused by guns. This is so because you own one of the vile things. And because you own one of those deadly things you are a vile and disgusting NRA member who wants to see dead children over their sights. Your "hobby"is the enjoyment of violence and murder, something no REAL democrat would ever enjoy.
That is what gun owners are told by your side of the board, this is what YOU are also.
Don't try to hide behind "enjoy my hobby RESPONSIBLY"as according to your "friends" on DU you suck wind just like any other gun owner.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)The NRA was a gun safety and training organization at one time. Now they are a Republican PAC and a lobbyist organization for gun manufacturers.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)But not by my FORMER membership in the NRA.
I'm more troubled with what I did in the military as an "enabler".
How about YOU?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)always in the shadows and small places in the mind.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the DA won't prosecute it.
DA Paul Czajka told NewsChannel 13 he would not prosecute Gregory Dean Jr.
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3043917.shtml
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)into the ground like a hated bug.
Those that cheerfully pave this road will long to run the other way at some point, probably too late.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)wow.
what's next? you lecturing us against hyperbole?
hack89
(39,171 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)there will be more DA's that refuse to prosecute that ridiculous law.
I give credit to that DA for recognizing a stupid law and hope he continues to refuse to prosecute anyone for having more than 7 rounds in a magazine.