Man arrested for having '2 extra bullets' in his sidearm's magazine.


The_Outlaw

~The Dude Abides~
Gregory Dean, Jr. was pulled over in New Lebanon, N.Y., Sunday for a light on his license plate being burnt out. But what began as a simple traffic stop ended up with Dean being arrested over two bullets in his registered firearm, which put him in violation of the state’s new law, the Journal News reported.

Last month, a provision in New York’s strict gun control laws went into effect, making it illegal to have more than seven rounds in a magazine unless said firearm was being used at a range or in a competition.

The state troopers saw a .40-caliber pistol on Dean’s passenger side when they approached his window. Although it was lawfully possessed by Dean, they discovered nine bullets within the magazine, putting him two bullets over the seven-bullet max set by the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act.

Dean was arrested for this violation and charged with unlawful possession for the number of bullets in the ammunition feeding device and third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation, according to the Journal News. Both are misdemeanor charges that went along with infractions he received regarding the light outage on his vehicle as well.

Dean was released with bail and has a court date set for later this month.


Link Removed

It's nice to see how many cops are so willing and eager to arrest us peasant citizens for daring to carry more than 7 rounds in our firearms. I'll just bet my mortgage that the fascist cop in this story is a registered Democrat (DumboCrapper). SMFH.
 

I don't get the outrage! this law is far from being obscure or arcane, everyone who has a gun or interested in guns knows that this law was passed. the guy who was arrested was not in compliance with the law, the cop did his job and enforced the laws currently on the books. Regardless of anyone's opinions about this law, it is the law and until it is changed, revoked or overturned in court those who carry a weapon in NY will have to abide by the law.
 
Just a thought……
The LEO could justify taking the firearm from the party during the traffic stop for for the officer’s safety, but could it possibly be an unreasonable search for the LEO to unload each round and count them (I know most magazines allow you to see the number of rounds in them through the back or side, but let’s just say the magazine doesn’t have this).
 
I don't get the outrage! this law is far from being obscure or arcane, everyone who has a gun or interested in guns knows that this law was passed. the guy who was arrested was not in compliance with the law, the cop did his job and enforced the laws currently on the books. Regardless of anyone's opinions about this law, it is the law and until it is changed, revoked or overturned in court those who carry a weapon in NY will have to abide by the law.
I disagree. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. Just sayin'.....
 
Man, this prove nothing but the law biding citizen have to do what the law said I guess this is where my XDs come in at as the gun to have.
 
The LEO had no reason to check the magazine unless there was suspicion of a crime. A LEO really doesn't need to remove the magazine to secure a firearm during a stop. He could simply set it on the roof of the car. 2nd and 4th Amendment violations.
 
Violation of the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. Just sayin'.....

2nd and 4th Amendment violations.

it is the law until someone gets it thrown out as being unconstitutional. the supremes have already ruled that some "reasonable" restrictions can be placed on the issuance of carry permits. there needs to be a test case or a few to determine what is and ins't reasonable. as for the search, according to the report I saw the gun was visible, on the seat, in NY that is PC to check the weapon.
 
And now for the story without the slant...
.
He was stopped for a license plate light infraction. Upon approaching the car the gun was partially in sight, against the law in NYS. In NY concealed means concealed. He was found to have a suspended license and was being arrested for unlicensed aggravated operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor. Although he could have been arrested for the exposed gun, he wasn't being charged with that violation. When you are arrested for any crime the LEO will secure your gun. He will unload it fully, making it safe for transport. It was at this time there were nine rounds found in the mag. This guy wasn't pulled over without cause, searched illegally or targeted by LE. No grand conspiracy. Cops aren't counting rounds in the guns of people who are pulled over. Since the gun and contents had to be inventoried and cataloged into the property room it was evident that the mag restriction was exceeded. LEO have no choice but to charge the crime when you stick it in their face. Had he given some thought to the law and had a current driver's license he would never have been arrested to begin with and there would be no issue. So, everyone who says they won't comply... take note. You can find your gun checked if arrested un an unrelated charge.
.
This law was enacted January 15, 2013 and took affect April 15, 2013. He should have known. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
.
This information came from my best friend, an attorney in NY, who had a conversation with the prosecutor.
 
An unconstitutional law is no law at all. An unjust law is null and void. The article below will help to to understand this...


If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of

D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian.

Henry Ford


Sent from behind enemy lines.
 
Here is another posting to help you...

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.


Sent from behind enemy lines.
 
Unconstitutional? Where in the constitution does it protect a given number of round a gun can hold? Most NY attorneys agree that the seven-round rule isn't getting overturned on constitutionality.
 
And now for the story without the slant...
.
He was stopped for a license plate light infraction. Upon approaching the car the gun was partially in sight, against the law in NYS. In NY concealed means concealed. He was found to have a suspended license and was being arrested for unlicensed aggravated operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor. Although he could have been arrested for the exposed gun, he wasn't being charged with that violation. When you are arrested for any crime the LEO will secure your gun. He will unload it fully, making it safe for transport. It was at this time there were nine rounds found in the mag. This guy wasn't pulled over without cause, searched illegally or targeted by LE. No grand conspiracy. Cops aren't counting rounds in the guns of people who are pulled over. Since the gun and contents had to be inventoried and cataloged into the property room it was evident that the mag restriction was exceeded. LEO have no choice but to charge the crime when you stick it in their face. Had he given some thought to the law and had a current driver's license he would never have been arrested to begin with and there would be no issue. So, everyone who says they won't comply... take note. You can find your gun checked if arrested un an unrelated charge.
.
This law was enacted January 15, 2013 and took affect April 15, 2013. He should have known. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
.
This information came from my best friend, an attorney in NY, who had a conversation with the prosecutor.

Thanks for the update. I have no problem with what the LEO did then.
 
The technology exists where a camera mounted in a car can read license plates and compare them against a list of 'wanted' tags, i.e. stolen, expired, wanted, etc..

Now if a list of tag numbers of vehicles registered to registered gun owners were loaded into this database, then the cop only has to find some insignificant reason to pull them over and count their bullets. Really, for a tag light, or do you just have a bunch of anal retentive cops in NY.

Also a shame that states spend so much money making license plates reflective to begin with.
 
Unconstitutional? Where in the constitution does it protect a given number of round a gun can hold? Most NY attorneys agree that the seven-round rule isn't getting overturned on constitutionality.

The part that says... "Shall not be infringed". That part.


Sent from behind enemy lines.
 
I disagree. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. Just sayin'.....

I agree with you in that in my opinion, the magazine limit is unconstitutional. But we as individuals are not the ones who have the power to determine what is and is not constitutional. The courts do. We cannot make our own decisions on the constitutionality of a law and then justify breaking it without consequence.

Hopefully one of these cases out of NY will go to court because it is (in my opinion) an infringement upon our right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed".

The outrage over this incident needs to be directed towards those who wrote such a ridiculous law.
 
Desert took the words right out of my mouth. Unless you're going to organize and follow through with a full scale revolution, laws must followed until thrown out.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top