# NY: Postban 11+ magazine prosecution



## Grenadier (Apr 29, 2010)

Looks like New York doesn't have anything better to do:

http://thedailystar.com/local/x1123623024/Otego-man-arrested-on-weapons-charge



> An Otego man was arrested Wednesday for allegedly having a high-capacity handgun magazine that is illegal under state law.
> 
> Anthony A. Hill, 41, was charged with third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a felony, after he turned himself in at the Oneonta state police station.
> 
> ...


 
I hope that he's vindicated, since this ban is a stupid one, at best.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 29, 2010)

I hope those storm-troopers are proud of themselves for busting such a "dangerous criminal."


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 29, 2010)

Now take it easy:



> Anthony A. Hill, 41, was charged with third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a felony, after *he turned himself in at the Oneonta state police station*.
> 
> *He was released on his own recognizance*.
> 
> Troopers said Hill's estranged wife reported Feb. 16 that he had a "post-ban" .40-caliber Glock magazine with a capacity of 15 rounds.



It's not like they kicked down his door and put an M4 muzzle in his mouth over the magazine. Agree with it or not (and I do think the law is wrong), it IS a law in NY and the cops job is to enforce the law. If anybody are "Stormtroopers" in this situation its the legislators who pass laws like this. The wife came in with a complaint of a law violation, they couldn't just tell her "we only enforce the laws we like lady..hit the road".

He goes to court, pays a fine, looses the magazine and gets either a an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or probation. No way he sees jail over it IMO.

"Don't ride with a mad woman".

It always the same thing when you are a cop. Enforce the law and you are a "Stormtrooper"...don't enforce it and you are "not doing your job and should be fired". Same thing with cell phones, write tickets and you are a "revenue generator for the State". Don't write them and everybody complains about how how many people are a menace on the roads and we "don't do anything" about it.

Bah.


----------



## dbell (Apr 29, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Now take it easy:
> 
> ...
> 
> He goes to court, pays a fine, looses the magazine and gets either a an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or probation. No way he sees jail over it IMO.



However if he get's probation, he is now a convicted felon, and must give up his gun(s), the right to vote, and has many other related problems....


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 29, 2010)

dbell said:


> However if he get's probation, he is now a convicted felon, and must give up his gun(s), the right to vote, and has many other related problems....



Only if his attorney is dumb enough to let him plea to the felony. Unless there is more to this story I see a reduction to the misdemeanor as the first legal maneuver.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 29, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Agree with it or not (and I do think the law is wrong), it IS a law in NY and the cops job is to enforce the law...



And what happens when the law is wrong or unconstitutional?  Do we just go with the "Nuremburg Defense" and call it a day, or should there be some room for discretion on the officer's part as to whether they enforce a law or not?

At what point are they "just doing their jobs" vs. becoming an enemy of the very people who are the reason their position exists?

And yes, I agree that the legislators are the ones who bear the greatest guilt for situations like these.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 29, 2010)

Dramatic much? Thats not the case here. This wasn't an issue of finding the magazine in a glove box during a car stop. This was a person coming in and reporting a violation of law. Discretion is FAR less in this case.



KenpoTex said:


> At what point are they "just doing their jobs" vs. becoming an enemy of the very people who are the reason their position exists?



Who votes in the people who pass these laws? Then re-elect them afterwards? And remember that there are also people out there who SUPPORT this law. The anti-gunners and gun grabbers who, as much as I disagree with them, ARE tax paying, voting, citizens. What do you say to them when they ask why you are not enforcing the laws you swore to enforce?

"Wrong" is a matter of opinion "unconstitutional" is a matter of law. I think this hi-cap law is "wrong" but "unconstitutional"?? I don't think that has been proven yet. Should us cops be allowed to enforce what we want to enforce based on our individual opinions? Im pro 2nd so if I use my discretion to let someone pass am I right simply because we agree on the matter? If my co-worker is "anti-gun" and decides to enforce this law is he "wrong"?


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 30, 2010)

Whatever...I'm probably being a little "over sensitive" on this _particular_ issue.  But I'm really getting to the point where I have zero tolerance for these ******** laws.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 30, 2010)

> Troopers said Hill's *estranged wife* reported Feb. 16 that he had a  "post-ban" .40-caliber Glock magazine with a capacity of 15 rounds.


'Nuf said.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## zDom (Apr 30, 2010)

I'm a gun-hugging nut case (as Obama calls those of us who exercise the 2nd Amendment), but my take on this is:

it's his own fault. He made a poor decision in having that/those mags.

He knows the laws in his state. If he cherishes his right to bear arms, he should comply with his state's laws or move to another state.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 30, 2010)

zDom said:


> it's his own fault. He made a poor decision in having that/those mags.
> 
> He knows the laws in his state. If he cherishes his right to bear arms, he should comply with his state's laws or move to another state.


Maybe he was hoping no one would notice/care.  (cue estranged wife)

Maybe he's now hoping he can get the capacity ban thrown out as unconstitutional.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## zDom (Apr 30, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Maybe he's now hoping he can get the capacity ban thrown out as unconstitutional.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Good luck with that 

I think the capacity ban is stupid (I'm sure the thugs aren't in compliance; just hobbles those who obey the law) but I wouldn't sacrifice my right to carry to change it. Guess I'm a bit on the selfish side.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 30, 2010)

Well from my take on this, he knew his ex-wife had knowledge of what he had. Thus he should have just gathered all the illegal mags and drove to Vermont and deposted them in a safe deposit box. Vermont is real real gun friendly and not far at all from NY.

I wonder why he didn't just BURY them offsite!

That way, he still had his mags.

Hope he can get out of the charge.

Deaf


----------



## lklawson (May 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> Good luck with that
> 
> I think the capacity ban is stupid (I'm sure the thugs aren't in compliance; just hobbles those who obey the law) but I wouldn't sacrifice my right to carry to change it. Guess I'm a bit on the selfish side.


I don't disagree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 3, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Well from my take on this, he knew his ex-wife had knowledge of what he had. Thus he should have just gathered all the illegal mags and drove to Vermont and deposted them in a safe deposit box. Vermont is real real gun friendly and not far at all from NY.
> 
> I wonder why he didn't just BURY them offsite!
> 
> That way, he still had his mags.


People often seem to forget how vindictive a S.O. can be during splits and divorces.  I have a friend who is in the middle of a split.  His S.O. asked to meet him sans lawyers.  He thought the meet was going well and they were beginning to get some things worked out so that the split could go smoother with less pettiness.  In the middle of this private meeting (held in a public place) she suggests that "they can still have sex."  Huh?  This didn't make any sense to him but raised red flags.  Then he remembered his lawyer warning him of a local case he was aware off: A similar case of a nasty divorce but suddenly the (not quite) ex-wife claims rape.  Goes to the e-room, does a rape kit, files charges, etc.  The (not quite) ex-husband claims consensual but it's his word against hers and, to be honest, law enforcement errs on the side of caution.  Not good for him.  Thus, my friend fully believes his (not quite) ex was hoping to do the same.

Now I ask you, how many men fall in love with a woman, marry her, share their lives and fortunes with her, and then foresee a time when she'll turn him in to the cops for illegal post-ban mags (or trumped rape)?  Darned few.

Now, to be fair, I suppose there are times when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.  But it's still the same thing.  For whatever reason, one partner "doesn't see it coming" (or is in denial, which amounts to the same thing).



> Hope he can get out of the charge.


Me too.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

