NY State: First Blood is Drawn.


Andrew49417

New member
http://www.wivb.com//dpp/news/crime/wnyer-first-to-be-charged-under-gun-law
 

I got thru on the link. It doesnt seem Wassell will be the type to lawyer up and challenge the constitutionality of this law. Let's hope I'm wrong.
 
Link Removed might be blocked for linking.

In the second alleged sale, investigators say Wassell sold an undercover officer an Armalite AR-10 Magnum Semiautomatic Rifle in February, in violation of the then recently passed NY SAFE Act, which made illegal the transfer, sale, exchange and disposal of an assault weapon to a person unauthorized to possess such a weapon. Wassell is facing a misdemeanor for the alleged violation of the NY SAFE Act.
They might have a hard time proving that with a good lawyer. So an undercover cop can't buy a gun. Might make the state look kind of stupid in their law or they are saying even their cops can't be trusted with guns.:biggrin:
 
Wait...if New York has an exception for LEOs to own assault weapons then he didn't sell to a prohibited person. If he didn't know it was a cop they might have conspiracy but the actual sale was to a non-prohibited person. So fck you too Bloomberg.
 
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't think he is really worried about the misdemeanor charge with a felony illegal weapons charge hanging over his head. He is going to concentrate on getting out of that charge without jail time and shrug off the the violation of the Safe Act. Pi$$ing people off about the Safe Act is not going to help him with his other case, he more than likely could care less since he probably isn't a political activist caught up in a new law.
 
This is sad- and it could happen to any of us- we too, could have the word "illegal" printed in front of the brands of our ARs if we grow too complacent and-... in the sort of words of another poster- not care about whats going on with "assault" rifles just because one doesn't own one, or not care about what is going on with semi-autos, bc one owns a revolver... and of course, here's another way for the state to make money, sting ops. with undercovers shopping for what are now illegal firearms... how convenient and profitable!
 
The answer is simple, get out of New York, New Jersey and those backward states and move to a state with good jobs and great gun laws.
 
Jeez, this guy had a wish to get nailed. The first gun he sold had no place in NY under the law since 1994. The second one could only be sold to an FFL or out of state.
As has been stated, you can't fix stupid.
Keep your guns, don't register them if that's the form of civil disobedience you prefer, but for cryin out loud selling them to someone you don't know is asking for it. Effective civil disobedience means deploying it in such a way as to pull it off and keep fighting.
 
Jeez, this guy had a wish to get nailed. The first gun he sold had no place in NY under the law since 1994. The second one could only be sold to an FFL or out of state.
As has been stated, you can't fix stupid.
Keep your guns, don't register them if that's the form of civil disobedience you prefer, but for cryin out loud selling them to someone you don't know is asking for it. Effective civil disobedience means deploying it in such a way as to pull it off and keep fighting.

Perhaps it was an activist action. Maybe the N R A will take up his cause and fund and/or provide his defense with an eye towards getting to the Supreme Court again.....Oops. Did I say "again?" That's right, the N R A has never taken a case to the SCOTUS. Nevermind.....

Just some friendly ribbin' 2Aw. Please don't call me a chihuahua or something over that, OK? Seriously, the guy could have activism in mind. He could be just a stupid guy with a blank stare on his face too, but the fact is, someone is going to have to be a sacrificial lamb to the court system to get anything done about the SAFE Act. Since the vast majority of the country can currently own the types of weapons this guy sold, why not make it about those kinds of weapons? Tailor it to already highly-restricted types of weapons, and it's not going to seem to the rest of the country that your state's gun owners are very serious about restoring their rights, as taking the baby step backwards from ultra-restrictive to highly-restrictive is not something the "unabridged 2nd Amendment" crowd is likely to donate time and/or money to.

I resist including myself in the collective by saying things like, "As gun owners, we need to do..." whatever, but I'm going to make an exception here. I honestly don't think "we" do "ourselves" any favors by accepting the premise that any small arms should be outlawed in any jurisdiction in America. I understand differences in 2A interpretation between ARs and say, Abrams tanks, but if we can't all agree that small arms should unequivocally be protected by the 2A, then we are unnecessarily diluting our strength as an influential constituency no matter which, or how many, gun-rights organizations we employ to aid in our struggle.

Instead of calling the victim of unconstitutional laws passed by tyrants "stupid," why don't you drop your ol' buddy Wayne a line and suggest he and his .org at least take a public stand against this kind of prosecution? Or the JPFO? Or the SAF? Or whomever. Just don't accept the premise that he acted illegally. It is your state government who is acting illegally, and who has been for years.

Blues
 
I hate to say it, but get ready to defend your freedom from the Amerika that is taking over our once GREAT country.
 
The fellow should have kept the weapons. They are worth more than money now and will soon be even more so.
 
Perhaps it was an activist action.

I dunno. I can't my head around the guy. He took himself out of the fight. It's like he was about to engage the Taliban, and before the firefight started, he threw his M4 on the ground and ran at them with his fists up. Accomplished nothing.

And the notion of the NRA stepping up? Don't remind me. That's looking more and more like a lost cause.
 
I dunno. I can't my head around the guy. He took himself out of the fight. It's like he was about to engage the Taliban, and before the firefight started, he threw his M4 on the ground and ran at them with his fists up. Accomplished nothing.

You may be right. On the other hand, someone is going to have to suffer under the tyranny of all these unconstitutional laws, or they will never suffer any harm to their civil rights, and likewise never make it to court to test the limits that the Heller ruling claims are inherent, but as-yet undefined, in the 2nd Amendment. I have no idea if this particular guy had anything like that in mind, but if he did, then it remains to be seen what he might accomplish.

And the notion of the NRA stepping up? Don't remind me. That's looking more and more like a lost cause.

Well, you already know I agree that it is, but hey, you're a member, you're affected by the law(s), you want the N R A to be everything you ever imagined it to be, so what on earth could it hurt to go for broke with 'em and ask for the moon? What, they might ignore you? Aren't they already ignoring your plight anyway?

My last line in my previous post was really my main point; It is government that is breaking the law, not the poor schlub who got caught resisting its tyranny, at least not if we still lived in a constitutional republic. The N R A should be encouraged by its membership to take a stand against that tyranny, even if planting the seed bears no fruit. Can't hurt to try. The worst you can get from them is what you're getting anyway.

Blues
 
...what on earth could it hurt to go for broke with 'em and ask for the moon? What, they might ignore you? Aren't they already ignoring your plight anyway?

I know you and I have had differences, blues, and are having them as we speak in other threads - but let it never be said that I miss a good point when it's presented to me.

I have written to my assembly-people locally, and got their replies. I have written to my state senator, and got his reply. I even wrote to Chuck-freaking-Schumer, and though I'm damn sure he didn't write it, I did at least get a reply from his office to the specific concerns in my letter - probably a form letter, yeah, but somebody took the time to lick the damn envelope.

And I wrote to Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre, too.
Guess what...?

Edit - I guess I should have called it an "inadvertently applicable form letter". 2A
 
Jeez, this guy had a wish to get nailed. The first gun he sold had no place in NY under the law since 1994. The second one could only be sold to an FFL or out of state.
As has been stated, you can't fix stupid.
Keep your guns, don't register them if that's the form of civil disobedience you prefer, but for cryin out loud selling them to someone you don't know is asking for it. Effective civil disobedience means deploying it in such a way as to pull it off and keep fighting.

Perhaps it was an activist action. Maybe the N R A will take up his cause and fund and/or provide his defense with an eye towards getting to the Supreme Court again.....Oops. Did I say "again?" That's right, the N R A has never taken a case to the SCOTUS. Nevermind.....

Just some friendly ribbin' 2Aw. Please don't call me a chihuahua or something over that, OK? Seriously, the guy could have activism in mind. He could be just a stupid guy with a blank stare on his face too, but the fact is, someone is going to have to be a sacrificial lamb to the court system to get anything done about the SAFE Act. Since the vast majority of the country can currently own the types of weapons this guy sold, why not make it about those kinds of weapons? Tailor it to already highly-restricted types of weapons, and it's not going to seem to the rest of the country that your state's gun owners are very serious about restoring their rights, as taking the baby step backwards from ultra-restrictive to highly-restrictive is not something the "unabridged 2nd Amendment" crowd is likely to donate time and/or money to.

I resist including myself in the collective by saying things like, "As gun owners, we need to do..." whatever, but I'm going to make an exception here. I honestly don't think "we" do "ourselves" any favors by accepting the premise that any small arms should be outlawed in any jurisdiction in America. I understand differences in 2A interpretation between ARs and say, Abrams tanks, but if we can't all agree that small arms should unequivocally be protected by the 2A, then we are unnecessarily diluting our strength as an influential constituency no matter which, or how many, gun-rights organizations we employ to aid in our struggle.

Instead of calling the victim of unconstitutional laws passed by tyrants "stupid," why don't you drop your ol' buddy Wayne a line and suggest he and his .org at least take a public stand against this kind of prosecution? Or the JPFO? Or the SAF? Or whomever. Just don't accept the premise that he acted illegally. It is your state government who is acting illegally, and who has been for years.

Blues
Here's the best way I've come to think about it, because like you said, there's so many idiots out there that like to say "so you think people should be able to own nuclear bombs?" when I say that the 2nd amendment should include ALL arms...if it can be used for self defense in a crowded room without harming anyone other than the intended target, then it should be 100% covered under the 2A. Grenades, C4, yeah crap like that you can restrict all you want. But I don't see how even an M16 isn't covered.
 
Here's the best way I've come to think about it, because like you said, there's so many idiots out there that like to say "so you think people should be able to own nuclear bombs?" when I say that the 2nd amendment should include ALL arms...if it can be used for self defense in a crowded room without harming anyone other than the intended target, then it should be 100% covered under the 2A. Grenades, C4, yeah crap like that you can restrict all you want. But I don't see how even an M16 isn't covered.

Wow. Woke up this morning to find some really good posts, and this is one of them. Thanks.
 
Link Removed might be blocked for linking.

They might have a hard time proving that with a good lawyer. So an undercover cop can't buy a gun. Might make the state look kind of stupid in their law or they are saying even their cops can't be trusted with guns.:biggrin:

Charge him under the 2nd Amendment, wait, they can't.
 
I know you and I have had differences, blues, and are having them as we speak in other threads - but let it never be said that I miss a good point when it's presented to me.

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to there. Link Removed

And I wrote to Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre, too.

About this particular individual? My suggestion was, instead of calling the guy stupid and accepting the premise that tyrants have the constitutional authority to limit his legal ability to own any small arms he wishes, to get on the side of the gun owner who is being persecuted for owning an inanimate object that is perfectly legal in somewhere around 90% of the United States. I'm not chiding you or saying you've done anything wrong, I'm simply suggesting that you (and other members) challenge the N R A to live up to its claimed promise of being a gun rights .org.

Guess what...?

Yep, and if you took my suggestion and ran with it, you would likely be ignored again. Nothing ventured, nothing gained though, and I'm sure the victim of your state's tyrannical government would feel better knowing someone is trying to get help for him, even if the effort is a complete failure, instead of calling him stupid for exercising his rights that he owns whether tyrants recognize them or not. Ya know?

Edit - I guess I should have called it an "inadvertently applicable form letter". 2A

Yeah, that's probably closer to being accurate. I'm somewhat lucky to have two senators and a representative that are all Republicans and have been reliable pro-gun-rights voters so far. However, Senator Sessions is the only one out of the three who has ever replied to my many letters, and actually, he replied to the vast majority of them for several years. Over the last few months though, his replies have completely dried up. It could just be overload and the volume of correspondence he can't keep up with since Sandy Hook, but it makes me nervous that he's not willing to commit on paper anymore what his stance is prior to important votes. I've always been nervous about Shelby and my rep., Brooks, for the same reason, because they never reply to being contacted.

Blues
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,760
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top