Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

[Sallow]

I think anything over a year would be pretty outrageous - but it was sort of gross neglegence to go vacationing and not look into the gun laws where you're going - and even grosser neglegence of his parents and teachers to not have known that different states have different gun laws.

New York's gun laws are pretty well known nationwide.

Don't come here with your shootin' irons.

That's why NY is such a safe place!

It is.

Amazingly so..given the population.

 

[Sallow]

This country wasn't meant, as a matter of original intent, to have a professional army under federal control.

My understanding of the Federalist vs anti Federalist debates differs dramatically for yours. Everything I've read suggests that we agreed on a standing army under the control of the commander in chief in exchange for the Bill of Rights...which we now choose to ignore.

However you view history, your argument that "the Constitution does not permit conceal carry" has pretty much been flushed down the crapper. You should be honest about your position from the beginning.

No it ain't. Suggests we "agreed" on a standing army in exchange for a bill of rights?

Holy crap

 

[whitehall]

Ignorance of the law only works for illegal aliens and political aids. In 1986 a civilian bodyguard for Ted Kennedy was arrested when he tripped the metal dectector trying to enter the Senate Ovffice building. He was carrying two full automatic sub machine guns, an Uzi and a Baretta and he had no paper-work, permit or nothing. He was arrested and quietly released on his own recognizance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yawn, what? Read the clause. It doesn't grant you a right to concealed weapons. And..it makes absolutely no distinction about what arms you can bear.

You wanna go down this rabbit hole? I'm right with ya.

Your red herring clearly illustrates your inability to effective argue the issue.

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

Discuss what.

I have made the issue VERY clear.
Why do you continue to dodge the issue and offer nothing but red herrings?

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sem marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

 

[Warrior102]

Ignorance of the law only works for illegal aliens and political aids. In 1986 a civilian bodyguard for Ted Kennedy was arrested when he tripped the metal dectector trying to enter the Senate Ovffice building. He was carrying two full automatic sub machine guns, an Uzi and a Baretta and he had no paper-work, permit or nothing. He was arrested and quietly released on his own recognizance.

I smell horseshit.

 

[pinqy]

A lot of this depends on where he got his info from. Clearly there was no intent to violate the law, but he still has an obligation to be aware of the laws. Now, Indiana honors the concealed carry permits from all other states and if he just assumed that everything was reciprocal, even though it specifically says on the Indiana State Police website that it is not, then he's out of luck. If he had looked at the New York State Police FAQ on pistiols while vague, it does point out that concealed carrry permits from other counties in New York are not valid in New York City.

He'd basically have to show that the specific website he looked at said that he could carry in New York City....and I don't that's true. Hopefully, the grand jury will not indict because he lacked mens rea...but that's iffy.

 

[Crackerjack]

But one thing I do know about the Constitution..it's about granting rights..not taking them away.

Negative. The Constitution restricts government. It doesn't grant rights.

Tell em CrackerJack! Sallow needs to be educated.

I figured everyone knew this.

I guess the schools up in Zoo York have a little different take on civics.

 

[Crackerjack]

He'd basically have to show that the specific website he looked at said that he could carry in New York City....and I don't that's true. Hopefully, the grand jury will not indict because he lacked mens rea...but that's iffy.

I would bet that any jury seated in NYC would be so conditioned that guns=criminal that his hopes of a no bill or an acquittal are approximately zero.

By the way, if you ever want to have a good time, take a New Yorker to a gun show. I took a friend of mine from Staten Island to one not too long ago and his eyes almost popped out of his head. He was sending pictures back to his friends of all the firearms. It was pretty funny!

 

[Warrior102]

By the way, if you ever want to have a good time, take a New Yorker to a gun show. I took a friend of mine from Staten Island to one not too long ago and his eyes almost popped out of his head. He was sending pictures back to his friends of all the firearms. It was pretty funny!

We had some Canadian's over this past summer and I showed them my gun collection. They were freaking amazed as well. Couldn't believe it

 

[Sallow]

Your red herring clearly illustrates your inability to effective argue the issue.

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

Discuss what.

I have made the issue VERY clear.
Why do you continue to dodge the issue and offer nothing but red herrings?

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sem marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

Dodge what issue?

Case law after case law..has pointed out that states have the right to restrict certain rights granted in the Constitution. Scalia even pointed that out after the Heller case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the way, if you ever want to have a good time, take a New Yorker to a gun show. I took a friend of mine from Staten Island to one not too long ago and his eyes almost popped out of his head. He was sending pictures back to his friends of all the firearms. It was pretty funny!

We had some Canadian's over this past summer and I showed them my gun collection. They were freaking amazed as well. Couldn't believe it

Same here, but from, Finland.
They were most amazed at the USGI iron I have.

 

[Sallow]

Negative. The Constitution restricts government. It doesn't grant rights.

Tell em CrackerJack! Sallow needs to be educated.

I figured everyone knew this.

I guess the schools up in Zoo York have a little different take on civics.

Ah..so you are in the Obama's "negative liberty" school of Constitutional law.

Me? Both rights and governments are abstracts of the human condition.

So we disagree somewhat.

The Constitution establishes a government, establishes what powers the government has and grants rights to it's citizens based on that power.

Rights are no more "natural" then plastic.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not having a CC permit I'm not up on what all goes into acquiring one, but it seems logical somewhere along the process those trying to acquire one should be educated as to whether or not their carry permit extends to other states.

Anyone know how that works?

Each state has different laws. I can carry in some states but not others, Others I can apply for a carry license based upon my states license, just have to pay their fees (Taxes) also. I've never checked for New york...........

 

[M14 Shooter]

Discuss what.

I have made the issue VERY clear.
Why do you continue to dodge the issue and offer nothing but red herrings?

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sem marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

Dodge what issue?

The issue you still have not responded to.

Case law after case law..has pointed out that states have the right to restrict certain rights granted in the Constitution. Scalia even pointed that out after the Heller case.

Aside from the fact that the constitution does not grant rights....
AGAIN you refuse to address the issue, which I have made VERY clear.

The issue here is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, as applied to the states theu the 14th amendment - you know, the basis for the argument to force states to recognize same-sem marriages from other states.

When you think you can discuss the issue at hand, please get back with us.

If you're -so- right, why do you continue offer nothing but avoidance and red herrings?

 

[Crackerjack]

Tell em CrackerJack! Sallow needs to be educated.

I figured everyone knew this.

I guess the schools up in Zoo York have a little different take on civics.

Ah..so you are in the Obama's "negative liberty" school of Constitutional law.

Me? Both rights and governments are abstracts of the human condition.

So we disagree somewhat.

The Constitution establishes a government, establishes what powers the government has and grants rights to it's citizens based on that power.

Rights are no more "natural" then plastic.

A plain reading of the Bill of Rights should at least convince you that all it does is restricts governments. "Congress shall make no law ..." "... shall not be infringed" "No Soldier shall ..." etc. The only part of the Constitution that has any binding upon private citizens directly is the Thirteenth Amendment.

Anyway, if you don't look at things from a natural rights perspective, the Ninth Amendment makes no sense at all. What other rights are there that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[eflatminor]

This country wasn't meant, as a matter of original intent, to have a professional army under federal control.

My understanding of the Federalist vs anti Federalist debates differs dramatically for yours. Everything I've read suggests that we agreed on a standing army under the control of the commander in chief in exchange for the Bill of Rights...which we now choose to ignore.

However you view history, your argument that "the Constitution does not permit conceal carry" has pretty much been flushed down the crapper. You should be honest about your position from the beginning.

No it ain't. Suggests we "agreed" on a standing army in exchange for a bill of rights?

Holy crap

It is true that nearly all the founders feared a standing army but those that felt it was a necessary evil won the day. Are you suggesting that is not the case? That our army today is illegal? If that is not what you are suggesting, then what do you think we got in exchange for allowing that standing army? What assurances quell the founder's concerns?

 

[Liability]

Miscarriage of Justice.

I once had a similar case in the same jurisdiction. The particular prosecutor (not the elected D.A., but one of his many assistant D.A.'s) assessed the absurd case properly and, via his integrity and discretion, I got the thing adjourned in contemplation of dismissal without my client even having to come back to this great State.

I have some hope that the same outcome will be available for Ryan Jerome.

 

[Sallow]

My understanding of the Federalist vs anti Federalist debates differs dramatically for yours. Everything I've read suggests that we agreed on a standing army under the control of the commander in chief in exchange for the Bill of Rights...which we now choose to ignore.

However you view history, your argument that "the Constitution does not permit conceal carry" has pretty much been flushed down the crapper. You should be honest about your position from the beginning.

No it ain't. Suggests we "agreed" on a standing army in exchange for a bill of rights?

Holy crap

It is true that nearly all the founders feared a standing army but those that felt it was a necessary evil won the day. Are you suggesting that is not the case? That our army today is illegal? If that is not what you are suggesting, then what do you think we got in exchange for allowing that standing army? What assurances quell the founder's concerns?

You and your ilk basically act as if all the founding fathers were some sort of saints of the same mind. Well newsflash: They weren't. They were human. They were given to petty bickering and some really nonsensical behavior. Some wanted a standing army..some didn't. Depends on who you read.

There was no "exchange". It was evolution based on the situation. The US was expanding. It wasn't going to be able to defend against foreign attacks and indians with part time militia. Additionally the standing army came in handy when clearing forests, establishing settlements and the rule of law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My understanding of the Federalist vs anti Federalist debates differs dramatically for yours. Everything I've read suggests that we agreed on a standing army under the control of the commander in chief in exchange for the Bill of Rights...which we now choose to ignore.

However you view history, your argument that "the Constitution does not permit conceal carry" has pretty much been flushed down the crapper. You should be honest about your position from the beginning.

No it ain't. Suggests we "agreed" on a standing army in exchange for a bill of rights?

Holy crap

It is true that nearly all the founders feared a standing army but those that felt it was a necessary evil won the day. Are you suggesting that is not the case? That our army today is illegal? If that is not what you are suggesting, then what do you think we got in exchange for allowing that standing army? What assurances quell the founder's concerns?

The Constitution clearly provides the power to create a standing army, under full federal control.
Any argument to the contrary - such as Sallow's repeated claims - is pure nonsense.

 

[Crackerjack]

Miscarriage of Justice.

I once had a similar case in the same jurisdiction. The particular prosecutor (not the elected D.A., but one of his many assistant D.A.'s) assessed the absurd case properly and, via his integrity and discretion, I got the thing adjourned in contemplation of dismissal without my client even having to come back to this great State.

I have some hope that the same outcome will be available for Ryan Jerome.

Was your case more the norm or the exception?

Just curious to know. All I have to go on is anecdote, mainly from a guy who flew into JFK with a firearm and got to stay in New York for a couple of years as a guest of the state.