NY Safe Act - Now the Media is part of the Governor's Public Relations Staff

[jrs]

Leave it to the uninformed media to (unintentionally?) jump on board....

Yesterday, I heard a news story...."Buffalo PD makes first Safe Act Arrest". It went something like this...
BPD chasing young thug who throws gun out of the car window, then bails and runs on foot. BPD catches him, finds the gun and charges him with multiple crimes.

1. He is 18 years old and has a gun..... 1st offense! You have to be 21 in NY.
2. He has no permit...2nd offense! Cannot even handle or "possess" a gun in NY without a permit.
3. Ran from police...3rd offense!

Now here's where the uninformed media come in...

They get the press release from the BPD (on board with Emperor Cuomo) which says....BPD Makes First Arrest Under Safe Act!

Media reports .... Buffalo PD makes first Safe Act Arrest...

The first thing they state is that the charges were a result of the SAFE ACT because the perp had a magazine that held 12 rounds (already illegal in NY prior to Safe Act...limit was 10, now 7). Then they say he was charged because he had more than 7 rounds in the magazine. Only after those statements do they start to mention the first three offenses.

The fallacy is that he would have been charged with the first three offenses REGARDLESS of the Safe Act.
ALL THE SAFE ACT DID WAS ADD TWO INSIGNIFICANT CHARGES!!!

The media did nothing to investigate or analyze if the Safe Act actually had anything to do with this guy's arrest... IT DID NOT.....he would have been arrested anyway. I thought the media was supposed to be investigative and exclusive of government. I thought they are supposed to question, then report. Instead they take the press releases and read them verbatim, becoming no more than a mouthpiece for the politicians and governmental agencies.

 

[www315]

I caught that too and

A) correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the the 7 round limit in your mag doesn't go into effect until the 15th of this month

And

B) the first SAFE Act arrest was in Silver Creek for selling an AR to an Under Cover

 

[apvbguy]

haven't you ever seen this? the media is the head sheep who leads the ignorant sheeple

 

[jrs]

I caught that too and

A) correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the the 7 round limit in your mag doesn't go into effect until the 15th of this month

And

B) the first SAFE Act arrest was in Silver Creek for selling an AR to an Under Cover

You're absolutely right, but when did that ever stop the government agencies and/or politicians from misstating the truth to further their agenda. The 7 round limit does become effective as of April 15, 2013, but they still reported the arrest as a SAFE ACT ARREST.

THE POINT IS... it wasn't really a Safe Act Arrest.....he would have been arrested on weapons violations REGARDLESS OF THE SAFE ACT!!!

As for the first safe act arrest, the point was not that it was the first Safe Act arrest, but it was touted by the City of Buffalo and the compliant media as the first Safe Act arrest in the City of Buffalo... The actual point of the post was that 1. the arrest would have been made REGARDLESS

 

[BC1]

Leave it to the uninformed media to (unintentionally?) jump on board....

Yesterday, I heard a news story...."Buffalo PD makes first Safe Act Arrest". It went something like this...
BPD chasing young thug who throws gun out of the car window, then bails and runs on foot. BPD catches him, finds the gun and charges him with multiple crimes.

1. He is 18 years old and has a gun..... 1st offense! You have to be 21 in NY.
2. He has no permit...2nd offense! Cannot even handle or "possess" a gun in NY without a permit.
3. Ran from police...3rd offense!

Now here's where the uninformed media come in...

They get the press release from the BPD (on board with Emperor Cuomo) which says....BPD Makes First Arrest Under Safe Act!

Media reports .... Buffalo PD makes first Safe Act Arrest...

The first thing they state is that the charges were a result of the SAFE ACT because the perp had a magazine that held 12 rounds (already illegal in NY prior to Safe Act...limit was 10, now 7). Then they say he was charged because he had more than 7 rounds in the magazine. Only after those statements do they start to mention the first three offenses.

The fallacy is that he would have been charged with the first three offenses REGARDLESS of the Safe Act.
ALL THE SAFE ACT DID WAS ADD TWO INSIGNIFICANT CHARGES!!!

The media did nothing to investigate or analyze if the Safe Act actually had anything to do with this guy's arrest... IT DID NOT.....he would have been arrested anyway. I thought the media was supposed to be investigative and exclusive of government. I thought they are supposed to question, then report. Instead they take the press releases and read them verbatim, becoming no more than a mouthpiece for the politicians and governmental agencies.

One thing we can be assured of is that the press will continue to write about and legislators will continue to speak about topics in nwhich they have no experience. This hack newspaper shows you cannot trust the news agencies. Someone once said those who don't watch the news are uninformed and those who do are ill-informed. Let me clarify a couple of things regarding NYS law for everyone.
.
The first three offenses are actually only two. Being underage and possessing a loaded firearm without a license constitute a single charge.
.
Section 265.03: Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when:
(1) with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person:
(a) possesses a machine-gun; or
(b) possesses a loaded firearm; or
(c) possesses a disguised gun; or
(2) such person possesses five or more firearms; or
(3) such person possesses any loaded firearm. Such possession shall not, except as provided in subdivision one or seven of section 265.02 of this article, constitute a violation of this subdivision if such possession takes place in such person's home or place of business.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.
.
Regarding magazine capacity, the law limiting the size of maggazines to seven rounds has been struck from the SAFE Act. While it will still be a violation (ticketed B misdemeanor) to load more than seven rounds, ten-round mags will continue to be legal. One may load ten while shooting at a range, private property or competition. While NYS has not allowed the sale of mags holding more than ten rounds, large cap mags manufactured prior to 1994 are legal until April 15, 2013, after which they must be sold out of-state or turned in. If that mag was manufactured prior to 1994 it would not constitute a charge by itself. If it was manufactured after 1994 it is a second charge under 265.02...
.
Section 265.02: Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.
.
Until April 15, 2013 a large capacity mag is defined as:
.
Section 265.00: Definitions
As used in this article and in article four hundred, the following terms shall mean and include:
23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
.
So, he's looking at one "C" felony and one "D" felony for the gun crimes. My bet is the prosecutor will dismiss the fleeing and large mag-cap charges if he takes a guilty plea to the "C" felony.

 

[jrs]

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the applicable sections of the law. It actually clarified a couple of points that I was unclear about since I'm not an attorney and don't play one on TV.

HOWEVER... the main point of my original post was to point out that the media used to actually INVESTIGATE and VERIFY "FACTS" before they reported them.....but these days, they simply look at a Press Release from a government agency (Buffalo PD in this case), put it through the "political filter" to see if it fits their (in this case anti-gun) agenda and report it as news. They reported the arrest as a result of the Safe Act, when the Class C felony provisions you described have been on the books for years. The public is now under the impression from this story that the Safe Act is making them safer, when in fact, it did nothing but add lesser charges to the list.

The media, if they're doing their job as "trusted communicators of fact"... "should" look at the press release, compare it to the provisions of the (BS)law, then report whether the press release was factual. The "fact" is ... an arrest was made that the BPD claimed to be the first under the Safe Act, but the Safe Act actually did NOTHING.... he would have been arrested under existing law. It did NOTHING to add to our safety and the media did NOTHING to add to our understanding of whether or not the Safe Act does anything to actually make us safer.