The "Safe Act" strikes: NY man charged for having 9 Bullets in Gun

Tom Servo said:
I'm a bit confused by the "unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices" charge. Either the device is illegal or it's not. A charge for "loading a feeding device above lawful limits" might make more sense.
Click to expand...
Although I agree that it sounds odd, if one examines the wording of the law, IMHO the charge is technically correct. From the definitions...
"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...
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

IOW the mere fact that a magazine contains more than 7rds makes it a LCAFD. It's goofy. :rolleyes:
Tom Servo said:
That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs.
Click to expand...
Just as a footnote, the U.S. v. Miller case was arguably a textbook example of this.
 
Ruthless4christ said:
But the idea that since he is a criminal we should not care if he was charged with having over 7 rounds in his mag is to me outlandish.
Click to expand...

The law sucks but it is currently the law. Some folks like the law. A lot don't. It isn't the least bit surprising that he'd be charged under it, particularly when there are other conditions present.

He was charge with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle 3rd Degree. That specific section indicates that he was driving "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of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner."

Licenses don't get suspended willy-nilly, without cause and without notification. He has obviously had trouble in the past and was intentionally driving illegally.

I'd bet that this is a "throw the book at him" case. Either his actions or previous record caused the cops to nail him with everything they could find. SAFE Act is coincidental, not causal.
 
R4C is correct that the law shouldn't be selectively enforced. In this case, it might have been difficult to ignore additional violations once they found he was driving without a license.

This is why it makes me uneasy when LEO's try to make political points by saying they won't enforce a law they don't like. It makes it tempting for people to say, "Oh well, they won't enforce it against us, so why should we fight it?" We then have to justify selective enforcement by saying that someone like Mr. Dean didn't "deserve" to be let off the hook, as some in this thread have done.

Both we and the other side are always looking for "poster children" to exemplify our arguments. Mr. Dean isn't much of a poster child for us -- but he isn't much of one for anti-gun folks, either. They're going to say what? "Here's why we need these strict gun laws, to keep us safe from dangerous maniacs who drive with suspended licenses!"

I don't think so. He's just some guy. And he did have a permit for the gun, so his record can't have been all that bad...
 
Last edited:
One other factor seems to be at work here. He was stopped by a "Trooper". The New York State Police work for our hero governor Andy and have probably been told to toe the line on the SAFE Act. The fact that many other law enforcement agencies have chosen to be "selective" in enforcement isn't a factor here.
 
It's sad to see the recent case where a perp and a college student died .The perp having had a 25 year long criminal record, including an illegal handgun.No body made a fuss about 25 years of being an armed criminal criminal.
 
It's sad to see the recent case where a perp and a college student died .The perp having had a 25 year long criminal record, including an illegal handgun.No body made a fuss about 25 years of being an armed criminal criminal.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You are saying that Dalton Smith was an armed criminal since he was age 5?? Where did you hear that? He was only 30 when killed by police.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...bbery-was-killed-by-police-officials-say?lite

Says here, his first arrest was at 16, which is a bit more realistic than 5.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/...-smith-was-first-arrested-at-age-16-1.5295866

I am not sure how the history of Dalton Smith actually relates to the first Safe Act arrest or not. Before somebody notes that gun laws don't prevent criminals from breaking them, no law really prevents anything like that. At best, they just set penalties for being caught. After all, they don't prevent gun permit holders (who are supposed to be the good guys, right?) from breaking the law either.
 
He was found with his legally registered weapon, the only problem being it had 9 rounds in it instead of the arbitrary 7.
Click to expand...


"His only problem": Not hardly.

When one gets pulled over by a cop the first thing the guy asks for is the drivers license. If one does not have a drivers license or the drivers license is revoked or suspended, the cop is going to look a little further. He may dig up some really bad stuff.

BTW: OK City bomber Tim McVeigh refused to have a license plate on his car: That's why an OK cop pulled him over. The handgun in plain view was the reason McVeigh was held. The rest is history.
 
Nice step for the DA! Hope his actions do not result in his firing.

Also I hope the moron has the book thrown at him for the other boneheaded things he did wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top