City of Utica sending 24 illegal guns to be destroyed

[springfield30-06]

I would like to know how much they actually looked into this information before reporting it...

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/93003814.html

City of Utica sending 24 illegal guns to be destroyed
By CAROLINE GABLE

Story Created: May 6, 2010 at 5:23 PM EDT
Story Updated: May 6, 2010 at 6:13 PM EDT

UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - On Thursday, Utica Police announced they are sending 24 illegal guns to be destroyed at a steel plant in Auburn, a move that they hope also sends out another message.

Multimedia
*
Watch The Video
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/93003814.html?video=YHI&t=a

Several local leaders spoke Thursday about keeping Central New York safe by keeping illegal guns off the streets. On average, Utica Police confiscate one illegal gun every week.

Utica Police Chief Mark Williams said the definition of illegal guns is not always understood.

"Rifles and shot guns themselves are not illegal to possess by a law abiding citizen, but they become illegal based on the amount that they are cut down," Chief Williams said.

A sawed-off shotgun and shorted rifle are just some examples Chief Williams cited of how a once-legal gun becomes illegal.

Utica Mayor David Roefaro is a member of the Mayors Against the Gun Show Loophole.

Roefaro said the gun show loophole allows criminals to obtain guns at out of state gun shows, and bring them into Central New York.

"They equate to about 60 percent of the illegal guns in Utica," Roefaro said.

However, Roefaro said the he wants people to know that this is not a second amendment issue.

"This is about illegal guns and the criminals who possess them," Roefaro said. "This is not about the second amendment right to bear arms. Anybody can go across the state line and buy an illegal gun at a show for cash with no questions asked and they can bring that gun back to New York State."

Buying a gun at a gun show from someone not officially in the business who only makes occasional sales within their state of residence is legal in 33 states. That "loophole," has been closed in 17 states including New York.

Rosemary Vennero is a Director at the YWCA, and spoke about guns and domestic violence at Thursday's press conference. Vennero said she supports any efforts to keep the victims of abuse safe, who can otherwise be threatened by illegal guns.

"In New York State, if you file for an order of protection you have to surrender your gun," Vennero said. "So if you surrender your legal guns and we think that we've protected the victim, and you can have this easy access to illegal guns what have we really done? Have we really protected the victim?"

Utica Police Chief Williams said that the 24 illegal guns now headed to Auburn to be destroyed were confiscated largely through drug arrests, and motor vehicle stops. In addition, 20 illegal guns are also currently in evidence.

 

[springfield30-06]

Same subject but a different reporting media

http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x1381031285/Roefaro-44-illegal-guns-to-be-melted

UTICA —

As Mayor David Roefaro appeared in the basement of the city's police department Thursday with a collection of illegal firearms that were seized on city streets, he called for stiffer federal rules for gun show sales.

Roefaro, who has made combating gun crime a top priority of his administration, said at a news conference that many of the guns had been purchased outside New York, in states with lax rules on sales at trade shows.

On display in the department's roll call room were 13 handguns and 11 long guns that will soon be melted. About 20 other guns and pieces of illegal weapons used in criminal cases that have not been resolved also are in police department storage, officials said.

Roefaro said Utica police have seized 44 illegal guns in the last 11 months.

The mayor was joined at the news conference with New York Mills Mayor Robert Maciol and Brenda Gilberti, the mayor of Whitesboro, who said they hoped at Utica's aggressive focus on guns efwould mean increased safety in the village they lead.

“We are all mayors against illegal guns,” Roefaro said.

Current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks to determine whether a potential buyer is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so federal officials can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.

The law does not require occasional sellers to do these checks, and there's no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller, Roefaro said.

Roefaro, Maciol and Gilberti are member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that describes itself as “dedicated to stopping the flow of illegal guns into America's cities.”

“I know that the problem of illegal guns is real,” said Maciol, who is also a Whitesboro police officer.

Utica police Chief Mark Williams said officers are seeing an uptick in cases of a single gun used by more than one person in unrelated crimes, a sign that he said suggests criminals may have found it difficult to obtain a gun.

And, he said, replica pistols are increasingly common.

“We're coming across a lot more of those,” he said.

Copyright 2010 The Observer-Dispatch. Some rights reserved

 

[Sgt_R]

A sawed-off shotgun and shorted rifle are just some examples Chief Williams cited of how a once-legal gun becomes illegal.

Utica Mayor David Roefaro is a member of the Mayors Against the Gun Show Loophole.

Roefaro said the gun show loophole allows criminals to obtain guns at out of state gun shows, and bring them into Central New York.

Amusing. I like how they're implying, without actually coming out and saying it, that you can just pop across state lines and buy an SBS or SBR at any random gun show.

R

 

[brboyer]

Utica police Chief Mark Williams said officers are seeing an uptick in cases of a single gun used by more than one person in unrelated crimes, a sign that he said suggests criminals may have found it difficult to obtain a gun.

Wonder how they determine that?

 

[JWF III]

"In New York State, if you file for an order of protection you have to surrender your gun,"

:banghead:Alright, Let me get this straight...
IF I lived in New York state (which will NEVER happen)...
If I filed for a restraining order against someone...
I have to surrender MY gun.:banghead:

So obviously, for one reason or another, I feel as if I need protection, and they'rer going to take my only means of protection from me. I DON"T THINK SO. The cops aren't going to be sleeping on my sofa, or in the next room. They won't get there any faster than if the tpo hadn't been filed. But they're going to take my firearm that I could use to save my own life.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

They sure do make a lot of sense with their laws.

Wyman

 

[JWF III]

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Sorry about that. I just wasn't quite done yet.:banghead:Now I am. I think.

Wyman

 

[lions]

^^You saved me from doing it, I was going to post the same thing. I hope that is one huge typo in the story, otherwise it is ridiculous.

 

[springfield30-06]

"In New York State, if you file for an order of protection you have to surrender your gun,"

Not totally sure about that one.... I think she misspoke (there's a video on the website). I think she meant to say that about the person the order of protection was filed against... or at least I hope that's what she meant.

I just added the video link to the original post

 

[JWF III]

or at least I hope that's what she meant.

Me too.

I thought about it too. I don't know whether it was her, the MSM, or NY state that made that mistake, but it was a BIG mistake. (Especially if it was NY state.)

Wyman

 

[leadcounsel]

1. I have always felt that restraining orders stripping the 2A rights of the accused was unconstitutional.

2. Destroying 24 guns is like throwing away an average of $12,000 that the city could use toward its police budget. These are taxpayer assets! I see no reason why cities continually and irresponsibly WASTE taxpayer assets. They should be sold/traded to an FFL for credit toward future purchases.

 

[Superlite27]

"In New York State, if you file for an order of protection you have to surrender your gun,"

Which one?

If this is true, it's hilarious.

If the author really means that those who have orders of protection filed against them have to forfeit their firearms.....

...why not start filing orders of protection against Bloomberg, State Reps, Anti-gun officials, police officers, powerful anti-gun legislators, Bloomberg's bodyguards, Bloomberg's friends, the police chief.......

...all kinds of anti gun movers and shakers...especially their bodyguards?

Wouldn't they have to forfiet their firearms?

I wonder how this would go over? Would this be legal? What would the result be?

I'm guessing you would need probable cause, or a documentable reason to file an order of protection.

If not.....wouldn't Bloomberg's body guards have to do their jobs with.....thier hands? Just like the majority of New Yorkers are required to do?

 

[Aren't we all]

How come all four guns in the picture are not cut down? or even look to be? and sporting/ hunting rifles and one .22 (I have an identical) the article gives the impression that they took all these of gangbangers.

 

[trickyasafox]

order of protection-

I bounce nights to help make ends meet in grad school. I've filed charges against a fair number of people, one of which resulted in an order of protection.

At no point was I asked to surrender my weapon, even though the officers knew I was armed.

I think she just simply misspoke as well.

to get an order of protection you have to be threatened or assaulted. The charges against the person in my above example were: Assault 3 and Harassment 2. i'm not sure the minimum requirements, but thats what happened in my case.

 

[JWF III]

to get an order of protection you have to be threatened or assaulted.

I'm guessing you would need probable cause, or a documentable reason to file an order of protection.

Not so in all cases. Typically now-a-days, that is the first thing done when a wife "lawyers up" when filing for divorce. No evidence needed. All they have to say is they "feel threatened", and they get the tpo granted.

Wyman

 

[Crusader103]

1. I have always felt that restraining orders stripping the 2A rights of the accused was unconstitutional.

+1 on that. The fact is that a temporary restraining order is not the same as an actual restraining order. While laws vary from state to state the process generally flows somewhat like this.

a) A "victim" makes an allegation and obtains a temporary order. Notice that the purported victim can allege anything they want.

b) The temporary order is based only upon the allegation, and requires no burden of proof.... yet.

c) The respondent (read defendant) is served with the order, which has full force and effect. If the order says weapons must be surrendered, than you are now forced to surrender your weapons based only upon the original allegation. Again, note that there is no burden of proof.... yet.

d) Generally, approximately 2 weeks later, a hearing will have been set. Both parties must show up in front of the judge and give their side. It is only now that the "victim" must show cause. Read on and you'll see that they really don't even have to do that in all cases.

e) If the victim shows a reasonable belief of fear (still a pretty low standard), the order will likely stand.

Yes folks, it is as easy as that to be stipped of your firearms. You know what's even worse, there is almost never a repercussion for a "victim" filing a false accusation. Where I was working the judge's refused to allow any type of false charge claim against the "victim" because it would "discourage future victims from obtaining an order of protection."

...why not start filing orders of protection against Bloomberg, State Reps, Anti-gun officials, police officers, powerful anti-gun legislators, Bloomberg's bodyguards, Bloomberg's friends, the police chief.......

You probably could and based upon the above at least get a temporary order, requiring nothing more than an allegation. Didn't say I suggested it.

I'm guessing you would need probable cause, or a documentable reason to file an order of protection.

Again, a temporary order will not require probable cause. Only an allegation. The permanent order would have the greater burden of proof, but your guns are already in police custody by that time. Depending on where, good luck getting them back.

It's very difficult to get guns returned when their surrender was ordered by a court, even through a temporary order. Even if the permanent order is not granted, the judge has to enter an order requiring the return of your firearms or the police will not release them. Contrast that to an officer simply taking a gun into custody after a traffic stop/arrest. This time the court did not order the confiscation so if no charges are ultimately filed or they are later dropped, it is easier to get them back. The court never ordered their surrender so no judge's order is required to get them back.

to get an order of protection you have to be threatened or assaulted.

Not true at all. You have to ALLEGE you were threatened or assaulted. That's vastly different. The respondent (defendant), who could have been on vacation at Disney at the time of the "assault," then has the burden of proof at the hearing to show why no permanent order should be issued.

Yes, you read that correctly, the burden of proof is on the respondent to prove that the temporary order should not become a permanent one. You see, if you don't show up to the hearing the order automatically is granted and becomes permanent. Even if you are there, but provide no answer or rebuttal, the judge will accept the original allegation on the face of it. No further proof required. Contrast that to a criminal charge where actual proof that you commited a crime must be presented. In that case you could remain silent and if the case is not proven, you walk away. Don't defend your rights here and you will lose them.

 

[Cranky CJ]

I know of a local township that took the confiscated guns that were not to be returned to the original owner and put them on consignment at a local gun shop to be sold. Zero effort, except for delivering to the gun shop, and they get part of the sales money. Not a bad course of action I think. However, these were all 'legal' guns. I would imagine that ALL towns and cities destroy all guns that are illegal to own in the state/country. Probably a very common practice, this instance just got a little media attention.

 

[Archie]

My turn...

Some of those guns look to be junk. I saw a couple RG revolvers and some really tacky looking stuff. One must understand criminals are not typically big on preventative maintenance. One of the rifles didn't have a bolt (but most of the others did); I'm thinking it was more a threat and a club than a firearm. Also, it is not uncommon for guns altered (bubba'd?) by criminals to be unsafe by means of trigger and safety modifications, and sometimes alterations to the structural components. A lot of those guns deserve a second chance in life as a car or washing machine.

There were also a couple nice guns that should be preserved. I saw one High Standard .22 target pistol, and one or two other pieces that would legitimately bring a decent price to offset the cost of handling and storing the weapons. Some of those guns deserve a good home.

I was amused at the 'gun show loophole' gas. I wonder if he knows about the 'used car loophole' used in the recent Times Square attempted bombing? Nor was there any mention of stolen guns used. That High Standard is a bit pricey for a .22 to be used in casual crime. Or to phrase it differently, why is the government forbidding me from disposing of my own property?