he was pulled over for a idiotic reason by the gestapo. any way to justify that is horrible. some people here if they are telling the truth live their lives if you can call it living cowering in fear of police as if in an open air prison. the local rosary club probably has more fortitude.
First person charged with too many bullets in gun under NY SAFE ACT
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Still irrelevant to this thread....
The SAFE act is a set of flypaper laws. Whether he was breaking other laws or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was charged under the SAFE act.
Unjust laws are unjust, whether they are broken by idiots or not.
The SAFE act is a set of flypaper laws. Whether he was breaking other laws or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was charged under the SAFE act.
Unjust laws are unjust, whether they are broken by idiots or not.
Creature
Member
I wonder if the NY state trooper who pulled Mr. Dean over was carrying the standard issue sidearm, the Glock 37, the magazine for which carries 3 more rounds than is permissible per the NY SAFE ACT...
As a New Yorker, I appreciate the attitude of non-compliance, but the only thing it will accomplish is the loss of permit. Handgun permits in NY are issued at the Permit Officer's discretion and can be revoked at any time. You can be pretty sure that not following gun laws, no matter how wrong they may be, is one of the things that will get your permit yanked.
the "pro" 2nd amendment NYSP have been exempted from the law as if it mattered police are exempt from laws when they are not exempted including murder. this is comical being the left of karl marx state police union put out a statement trying to get public sympathy for a law they said they did not pass then they do this. half of state troopers would not have a job if some others did not pass 70000 laws a year
Then the government has already won.
BSA1
member
Since this thread is way off topic.
In regards to the comments about the driver deserving to be stopped for a dim taillight as a active LEO working in a major population such as the northeast I guarrantee I can legally stop every one of you.
The first way is too simply follow you long enough until you make a driving mistake.
The second is nervious driver. Ever wonder why the heck the police are following you so long so you start checking the rear view mirror more and more often. Hmmm, as a LEO a law abiding citizen won't need to be so nervous so you must be hiding something.
Third is you or your car fit the description of being involved in crime, for example robbery. Care to guess how many robberies occur in heavily populated area? And in a getaway car fitting the same general description as yours, say for example a blue 4 door. N.Y. City is only a 2 -3 hours away.
I live in a mostly rural farming area. One night I was stopped by smallville police for a burnt out license plate light. When the officer realized he had made a mistake of stopping another leo he explained that a red pickup with multiple occupants had been driving around town shooting off fireworks and was last seen leaving town. I was by myself coming into town.
Mind you I live in farming community and dozens of pickups and farm trucks come into town daily with license plates obscured by mud and dirt or damaged by trailer hitches banging into them.
But the topic is not about probable cause for the traffic stop. It is about violation of the SAFE Act. Since the presence of the gun in plain view was not a violation of the law did the officer even have the authority to seize it to begin with? Hence this may be a better search and seizure case.
And a sharp point is made about how many rounds the trooper had in his gun (although it has nothing to do with the SAFE Act charge.)
In regards to the comments about the driver deserving to be stopped for a dim taillight as a active LEO working in a major population such as the northeast I guarrantee I can legally stop every one of you.
The first way is too simply follow you long enough until you make a driving mistake.
The second is nervious driver. Ever wonder why the heck the police are following you so long so you start checking the rear view mirror more and more often. Hmmm, as a LEO a law abiding citizen won't need to be so nervous so you must be hiding something.
Third is you or your car fit the description of being involved in crime, for example robbery. Care to guess how many robberies occur in heavily populated area? And in a getaway car fitting the same general description as yours, say for example a blue 4 door. N.Y. City is only a 2 -3 hours away.
I live in a mostly rural farming area. One night I was stopped by smallville police for a burnt out license plate light. When the officer realized he had made a mistake of stopping another leo he explained that a red pickup with multiple occupants had been driving around town shooting off fireworks and was last seen leaving town. I was by myself coming into town.
Mind you I live in farming community and dozens of pickups and farm trucks come into town daily with license plates obscured by mud and dirt or damaged by trailer hitches banging into them.
But the topic is not about probable cause for the traffic stop. It is about violation of the SAFE Act. Since the presence of the gun in plain view was not a violation of the law did the officer even have the authority to seize it to begin with? Hence this may be a better search and seizure case.
And a sharp point is made about how many rounds the trooper had in his gun (although it has nothing to do with the SAFE Act charge.)
what do you mean the officer saw he made a mistake pulling over another LEO? the mistake that was made is the other guy did not give you a ticket like us mere mortals.who do you think you are I wish you would have gotten a ticket for that and gotten some more on trumped up charges.
BADUNAME30
Member
I know this'll git this thread a pad lock.
You can answer me in a pm.
Why, BSA1 is that a mistake ?
You can answer me in a pm.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Unjust laws are still the law until either removed or ruled upon by the courts. Whether or not they are unjust is a matter of opinion.
He was probably open carrying it which is not legal under New York law, except for folks like LEOs. However, it really doesn't matter what the trooper was or was not carrying. Mr. Dean was breaking the law, several.
Getting 'caught' breaking a BS law. This guy may not be an angel, but the government keeps passing law after law. I can not keep up. I bet no one here knows every law in the state and most have not read the penal code. The police can always 'find' a reason to pull you over. This is well established. I am sure they could find something wrong with my car because there are so many rules.
One time I got pulled over for no other reason than because my bug screen that was way above my headlights was red. My truck was also red. Officer said it was a violation. Clear would have been ok, but looking through it, it still would have looked red.
Blame the law makers.
One time I got pulled over for no other reason than because my bug screen that was way above my headlights was red. My truck was also red. Officer said it was a violation. Clear would have been ok, but looking through it, it still would have looked red.
Blame the law makers.
Very relevant to the subject. The law is unjust but it is law. This thread is about a person being arrested for it. If you want to change the subject and start a thread on how to get the law changed you can. Fact is right now it is the law and if you wish to break an unjust law then it would be wise to have the rest of your stuff in order. Don't be an idiot when breaking unjust laws. Again people tend to make their own luck.
Considering this board has almost been unanimously against the SAFE Act....what exactly is it that you are expecting?
We oppose the SAFE act.
OP posted that someone is being charged under the SAFE Act
We are discussing the routes to having the SAFE Act repealed.
So again...what relevance does anything else this guy did, have on our discussion?
What exactly does it matter if he broke other laws? We are not discussing those other laws...we are discussing the SAFE act. Bringing up other laws the guy broke IS IRRELEVANT
No it is not relevant....Do you know that this guy was intentionally breaking the law in order to make a stand?
If he did....yeah he is a idiot for breaking other laws. If he wasn't I still don't see how anyone can justify piling on charges of crap laws.
Should we assume that only people who have their "crap together" should be protected by the Constitution???? Nope, sorry that is not how it should nor is it how it does work.
You are embellishing and exaggerating for no reason. The constitution should protect everyone, we probably all agree on that. Of course the safe act is absurd. One thing that people should take away from an event like this is, if you are going to break unjust laws then don't break multiple laws in process.
He is not the first person to actually violate the safe act, he is the first person to get arrested though. It is not surprising that the person who first got arrested also.
1) failed to keep car in proper working order
2) failed to keep his drivers license valid
3) drove even though he is prohibited
Again, the safe act is stupid, and if a resident of NY wants to make a decision to not comply then please do not be an idiot and break valid laws in the process.
At the same time...his case might be able to get it nullified. Better a person who is already in trouble fight the fight, than for someone to fall on their sword in order to fight the fight.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Better a person who is already in trouble fight the fight, than for someone to fall on their sword in order to fight the fight.
absolutely not the case
you want someone "clean" as your test case
absolutely not the case
you want someone "clean" as your test case
The courts have shown in the past that they do not necessarily rule on specific laws based on the previous history of a person. They are ruling on the laws not the person. You don't have to worry about a jury when a law is being ruled upon.
Take Miranda v Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was hardly "clean"
Last edited:
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
you think hes gonna get the law struck down? got your checkbook out?
hes not got the resources.
hes not got the resources.
He doesn't have to. Some RBKA group could fund his defense. It has certainly happened before
TCB in TN
Member
Perhaps it is just me, but I find it odd that LEOs know every single obscure law on the books when it comes to stopping a citizen, but fail to know whether OC or in many cases whether legal CCW exists in their jurisdictions.
Further more it is amazing the number of mental gymnastics many will go through to blame a citizen for not knowing every jot or tittle in the law and excuse a LEO for their seeming lack of knowledge. Of course YMMV.
Further more it is amazing the number of mental gymnastics many will go through to blame a citizen for not knowing every jot or tittle in the law and excuse a LEO for their seeming lack of knowledge. Of course YMMV.
X-JaVeN-X
Member
I thought this forum was "the high road"... not "the high horse"...? Some of you need to get off it...
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,132
BSA1 said:
In most NY jurisdictions, a police officer following a vehicle for more than 3 miles with lights off THEN pulling it over is entrapment and the charge gets thrown out. Saw it quiet a few times getting people out of stops in high school.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
If the trooper had more than 7 rounds in his own magazine, he was breaking the same law he arrested the driver for breaking. The NY 'SAFE' Act does not exempt LEOs from the ridiculous magazine restrictions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked