NYC Gun Charges Dropped. Now I Can Speak Out - MARK MECKLER

[jake2far]

So far all we know is outright ban on handguns is unconstitutional, as well as the requirement to keep firearms inoperable. Both DC and Chicago have registration requirements after their bans got overturned. In fact Chicago is still being sued over shooting range ban (they require training for gun ownership), but nothing in terms of registration at the moment. Bottom line - no 2A violation in this case.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I was wondering, if they took his weapon and refuse to give it back, how does this not violate the 2nd amendment? The part about "keep" means they can't take it from him, "bear" means to carry it, which if the story is true is exactly why they arrested him and took his weapon. It is a violation of the 2nd, 7th, and my favorite, the 14th.
The answer is to sue them for violating your "Civil Rights" sue the Port, sue the City, sue the County and sue the State. Sue each and every person who participated. They arrested you, took your property, denied you your civil rights. They should have to pay.
If every gun owner sued their city, county, and state , including the individules who did this, and I mean everyone, somewhere a Judge will hear it, and the Anti Gunners will fear the outcome. I say sue them all.
It is not about the cost of the one gun, it is about your "Civil Rights".
Jim

 

[fd15k]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I was wondering, if they took his weapon and refuse to give it back, how does this not violate the 2nd amendment? The part about "keep" means they can't take it from him, "bear" means to carry it, which if the story is true is exactly why they arrested him and took his weapon. It is a violation of the 2nd, 7th, and my favorite, the 14th.
The answer is to sue them for violating your "Civil Rights" sue the Port, sue the City, sue the County and sue the State. Sue each and every person who participated. They arrested you, took your property, denied you your civil rights. They should have to pay.
If every gun owner sued their city, county, and state , including the individules who did this, and I mean everyone, somewhere a Judge will hear it, and the Anti Gunners will fear the outcome. I say sue them all.
It is not about the cost of the one gun, it is about your "Civil Rights".
Jim

I'm sorry Jim, you're clearly not up to date with the legal stuff. You can't sue somebody for something in a court of law using a legal framework which that court of law does not recognize. Well, technically you can, but your case will be dismissed out right for lack of standing. Please read on the lawsuits brought by Second Amendment Foundation to get a better understanding of the problem.

 

[civilian75]

But, since gun ownership is a private right, protected by The Constitution then the ACLU should follow through and fight for him. After all, that's what the ACLU claims they do!!

What I meant is 2nd amendment issues do not appear to be ACLU priority. Check their website: Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I know it is nice to have big political money money to help get you out of a legal jam, but the facts are that he was illegally in possession of a firearm in the state of New York. All that garbage about buying it legally and having a permit in California is irrelevant. it doesn't matter if we agree with the law. it is the law and he was in violation of it. It was illegal for him to have it in New York prior to declaring it. He didn't get cleared. He copped to a plea bargain (most likely due to his ability to get a good attorney). I have no sympathy for him. I am willing to bet part of the plea deal is he forfeit the weapon. He should just be glad he got off as easy as he did and shut up with the whining. None of the rest of us would have received such grand treatment. We would be sitting in a jail cell or have a felony on our records.

 

[roxzor]

I know it is nice to have big political money money to help get you out of a legal jam, but the facts are that he was illegally in possession of a firearm in the state of New York. All that garbage about buying it legally and having a permit in California is irrelevant. it doesn't matter if we agree with the law. it is the law and he was in violation of it. It was illegal for him to have it in New York prior to declaring it. He didn't get cleared. He copped to a plea bargain (most likely due to his ability to get a good attorney). I have no sympathy for him. I am willing to bet part of the plea deal is he forfeit the weapon. He should just be glad he got off as easy as he did and shut up with the whining. None of the rest of us would have received such grand treatment. We would be sitting in a jail cell or have a felony on our records.

Aren't you missing the point? Just because something is law, doesn't mean that it is to be blindly obeyed. I'm pretty sure NYC state law regarding firearms doesn't override the constitution...

It's not about this guy, it's about what our country is becoming.

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but this video makes a good point.

The Chain of Obedience - YouTube

 

[fd15k]

Aren't you missing the point? Just because something is law, doesn't mean that it is to be blindly obeyed. I'm pretty sure NYC state law regarding firearms doesn't override the constitution...

It's not about this guy, it's about what our country is becoming.

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but this video makes a good point.

The Chain of Obedience - YouTube

Civil disobedience is morally justified in extreme cases. Civil rights movement is one example. Until then, laws have to be obeyed. Especially since democratic options are not yet exhausted.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Aren't you missing the point? Just because something is law, doesn't mean that it is to be blindly obeyed. I'm pretty sure NYC state law regarding firearms doesn't override the constitution...

It's not about this guy, it's about what our country is becoming.

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but this video makes a good point.

The Chain of Obedience - YouTube

No, I am not missing anything. He was not making a public display of civil disobedience. He was simply demonstrating the elitist attitude that rules do not apply to him when he was inconvenienced by being caught. Now he is whining that he did nothing wrong when he clearly did do something illegal.

 

[Grunwald]

No, I am not missing anything. He was not making a public display of civil disobedience. He was simply demonstrating the elitist attitude that rules do not apply to him when he was inconvenienced by being caught. Now he is whining that he did nothing wrong when he clearly did do something illegal.

No city nor state has the right to override your constitutional rights with a law. The constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.
Just because idiot politicians pass such law, does not make them right or constitutional.
What if the NY state passed a law prohibiting publishing political opinion without a license from the state???
How many people would accept that?? (I am sure that some would think it is a good idea).

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

No city nor state has the right to override your constitutional rights with a law. The constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.
Just because idiot politicians pass such law, does not make them right or constitutional.
What if the NY state passed a law prohibiting publishing political opinion without a license from the state???
How many people would accept that?? (I am sure that some would think it is a good idea).

You can play hypothetical games all you like. They are a total waste of time but it is your time. What isn't a hypothetical is that is you break the law willingly with no greater cause in mind at the time you are a clear cut criminal and should be treated as such. Ifind it laughable how people keep complaining about double standards and hypocritical people but then they defend this whining elitist.

 

[Bigfoot]

You can play hypothetical games all you like. They are a total waste of time but it is your time. What isn't a hypothetical is that is you break the law willingly with no greater cause in mind at the time you are a clear cut criminal and should be treated as such. Ifind it laughable how people keep complaining about double standards and hypocritical people but then they defend this whining elitist.

Oh now I understand your view, he's a Tea Party guy.

 

[rolandson]

I know it is nice to have big political money money to help get you out of a legal jam, but the facts are that he was illegally in possession of a firearm in the state of New York. All that garbage about buying it legally and having a permit in California is irrelevant. it doesn't matter if we agree with the law. it is the law and he was in violation of it. It was illegal for him to have it in New York prior to declaring it. He didn't get cleared. He copped to a plea bargain (most likely due to his ability to get a good attorney). I have no sympathy for him. I am willing to bet part of the plea deal is he forfeit the weapon. He should just be glad he got off as easy as he did and shut up with the whining. None of the rest of us would have received such grand treatment. We would be sitting in a jail cell or have a felony on our records.

+1
I wonder if the same considerations will be offered to the med student and the Marine who have also had the lack of good judgment to carry unlicensed in NYC?

NYC issues permits and licenses all the time, but one must ask for them in advance. Personally, when I travel to NYC, I leave my gun at home...because like most responsible CHL holders, I know that it is my responsibility to know and follow the laws of where I intend to carry.

I also don't bring 14 round SCT magazines to California. Just because.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

You can play hypothetical games all you like. They are a total waste of time but it is your time. What isn't a hypothetical is that is you break the law willingly with no greater cause in mind at the time you are a clear cut criminal and should be treated as such. Ifind it laughable how people keep complaining about double standards and hypocritical people but then they defend this whining elitist.

For a long time I have been trying to put my finger on the roots of the attitude displayed by many when someone is unfairly caught in a situation where the law is clearly being violated, but is clearly irrelevant or not meant to address the situation at hand. You've provided me at last with the word I needed to make the correct connection: "elitist". Whenever you are doing 63 in a 55 zone, and get pulled over, even though the road was designed for 70 mph at night, and now it is a clear, bright dry day, there will be some yahoo cheering as he passes by. He'll be smugly thinking to himself that you got what you deserved, and if you complain about the silliness of the 55 mph speed limit he'll tell you that all you had to do was obey the law, even though he and 99.8% of all drivers frequently disobey it when they feel like it. The big question for me has always been, why does the yahoo care? Why does he side with the to-the-letter enforcement of a regulation whose strict enforcement is obviously stupid or abusive in the case at hand? "Elitist" is the clue I needed. Bingo! Now I understand. When you passed him doing 63 mph he was doing 61 mph, and he was annoyed because he perceived that you considered yourself to be better than him. You wronged him by doing something he was afraid to. He's gleeful that you got your dick slapped, and he feels validated for maintaining his timid position of strict obedience. He's only supporting strict enforcement because he dislikes you, not because he believes strict enforcement of the law is necessary or even desirable.

The old adage, "Rules are made to be broken." is very true. Most men are used to selective enforcement of the rules, whether it's a referee in a basketball game or a judge in a court of law. For most men, the law and justice, or even safety are not the same thing. Everything changes when women get involved. Have you noticed how many of these stories detailing a horrendous can of worms being opened that might have been ignored involve women in enforcement? I can think of a half dozen in the last year. There's a reason for it. When people know their jobs, and are experienced at dealing with the situations that arise where interpreting the rules is necessary, they are comfortable with being practical and fair, rather than enforcing the rules to the letter. When people are inexperienced and uncomfortable in their jobs, and maybe don't know the rules very well, they tend to enforce them to the letter, rather than have any question of interpretation arise that they might have to justify. Men have been dealing with applying the rules in a fair way since they were toddlers. They've been doing it since they first banded together to hunt mammoths. Women, on the other hand, don't have that long history of functioning that way. And when they are thrust into a position of authority, often really don't know how to handle it. Women have traditionally relied upon consensus in decision making. Whatever the group thinks is right. When there is no group to support them, they drop back to strict interpretation. It's no coincidence that as women have become more and more involved in school and business management we hear the terms "best practices" and "zero tolerance" more and more.

And now some of you will tell me that I'm sexist and should be ashamed of myself. There's really no practical difference between men and women in roles of authority. But I'm simply recognizing reality here. Yeah, that's an elephant over there. And trying to ignore it doesn't work very well.

 

[jake2far]

I'm sorry Jim, you're clearly not up to date with the legal stuff. You can't sue somebody for something in a court of law using a legal framework which that court of law does not recognize. Well, technically you can, but your case will be dismissed out right for lack of standing. Please read on the lawsuits brought by Second Amendment Foundation to get a better understanding of the problem.

You are incorrect, you can sue anybody for anything. I disagree that the "legal framework" is not recognized. If you sue everyone connected to the arrest, they have to defend themselves, it gets news, even if you lose the suit they have to spend their time and money defending the suit. It is the same tactic used by anti gunners. If by chance somewhere a Judge decides there is as you state "legal framework" (which by the way is incorrect by legal definition, I believe the concept you are looking for is Standing or locus standi ). Here is a question for you since you seem to believe you are smarter than me, how do you permit a right? The definition of a right given to you by a higher power cannot be permitted by the State, just because you want to believe I should abide by your rules doen't give you the power to make it so. A "Right" is given to you by God, it can not be taken away by you or a State unless we allow it. Make them spend their time and money defending themselves, win one somewhere and it will make them have to regroup.
I think you fail to realize, I am not saying sue them for a 2nd amendment violation. Sue them for a Civil Rights violation. In fact criminal charges can be brought for "Civil Rights" violations. Ask the Police who beat Rodney King, they weren't charged by the local prosecuter, they were charged on Federal charges of "Civil Rights" violations and they went to prison, this man was detained and lost his private property, it is a clear case of "Civil Rights" violation, all that needs to happen is Lawyers from all over the country need to file the cases. Win one and we have a whole new ball game. Win none and we burn their money which than can't be used to promote antigun laws.
You need to realize at one time slavery was within your "Legal Framework", tell me how did that work out? I don't have to accept your premise that we have to give up our rights because you say "it isn't with our legal framework" you are part of the problem if you think it's ok to trade off "rights".
This man has standing.
Perhaps this will help:
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

Since this man was arrested, lost personal property without proper compensation or a trial, and he lost time and freedom for a period of time, he has standing. You may not think so but I don't care what you think, he lost an item specifically listed as protected and of a value that exceeds the prescribed value in the Bill of Rights.
Gun owners need to quite being defensive and go offensive, sue the pants off everyone connected to this, make it a class action suit, make the antigunners pay, if one suit wins anywhere in the USA it will change the game forever.

Jim

 

[fd15k]

You are incorrect, you can sue anybody for anything. I disagree that the "legal framework" is not recognized. If you sue everyone connected to the arrest, they have to defend themselves, it gets news, even if you lose the suit they have to spend their time and money defending the suit.

That's not correct either. Police has qualified immunity in this case. DA has absolute immunity. Who is left there to sue ?

I think you fail to realize, I am not saying sue them for a 2nd amendment violation. Sue them for a Civil Rights violation. In fact criminal charges can be brought for "Civil Rights" violations. Ask the Police who beat Rodney King, they weren't charged by the local prosecuter, they were charged on Federal charges of "Civil Rights" violations and they went to prison, this man was detained and lost his private property, it is a clear case of "Civil Rights" violation, all that needs to happen is Lawyers from all over the country need to file the cases.

For starters, we consider 2A to be part of "Civil Rights". But now that you agree that there are no 2A violations in this case, what else is there that was violated ? I stated earlier that confiscation of property without compensation may or may not be a ground for a lawsuit, but unlikely to be pursued due to cost disparity. Somebody else pointed out as well that it is possible that the firearm was retained as a part of a plea, and we can't be sure of what happened until he actually files a formal complaint.

You need to realize at one time slavery was within your "Legal Framework", tell me how did that work out?

I suspect you're implying the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Not only I disagree with that, but also you're not comparing phenomena of equal magnitude. Like I said before - civil disobedience is reserved for extreme cases, when democratic options are exhausted. Neither is true here - there is no ban on firearms in New York, nor the state has ignored any court rulings or federal legislation.

Since this man was arrested, lost personal property without proper compensation or a trial, and he lost time and freedom for a period of time, he has standing.

And several times it was brought to your attention that it happened due to his ignorance of the law. If I take a firearm to a sterile area of PDX, get arrested, charged, my firearm gets confiscated, do you think I should sue everybody involved for my unjust experience ?

he lost an item specifically listed as protected

I remind you again, it's the act that's protected (firearm ownership for purposes of self-defense), while constraints on the act (licensing & registration) are permissible at the moment. Look again at current litigation in Chicago.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Oh now I understand your view, he's a Tea Party guy.

So you contend that Tea Party members are by definition whining elitists? If not i do not see your logic in making that connection.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

For a long time I have been trying to put my finger on the roots of the attitude displayed by many when someone is unfairly caught in a situation where the law is clearly being violated, but is clearly irrelevant or not meant to address the situation at hand. You've provided me at last with the word I needed to make the correct connection: "elitist". Whenever you are doing 63 in a 55 zone, and get pulled over, even though the road was designed for 70 mph at night, and now it is a clear, bright dry day, there will be some yahoo cheering as he passes by. He'll be smugly thinking to himself that you got what you deserved, and if you complain about the silliness of the 55 mph speed limit he'll tell you that all you had to do was obey the law, even though he and 99.8% of all drivers frequently disobey it when they feel like it. The big question for me has always been, why does the yahoo care? Why does he side with the to-the-letter enforcement of a regulation whose strict enforcement is obviously stupid or abusive in the case at hand? "Elitist" is the clue I needed. Bingo! Now I understand. When you passed him doing 63 mph he was doing 61 mph, and he was annoyed because he perceived that you considered yourself to be better than him. You wronged him by doing something he was afraid to. He's gleeful that you got your dick slapped, and he feels validated for maintaining his timid position of strict obedience. He's only supporting strict enforcement because he dislikes you, not because he believes strict enforcement of the law is necessary or even desirable.

The old adage, "Rules are made to be broken." is very true. Most men are used to selective enforcement of the rules, whether it's a referee in a basketball game or a judge in a court of law. For most men, the law and justice, or even safety are not the same thing. Everything changes when women get involved. Have you noticed how many of these stories detailing a horrendous can of worms being opened that might have been ignored involve women in enforcement? I can think of a half dozen in the last year. There's a reason for it. When people know their jobs, and are experienced at dealing with the situations that arise where interpreting the rules is necessary, they are comfortable with being practical and fair, rather than enforcing the rules to the letter. When people are inexperienced and uncomfortable in their jobs, and maybe don't know the rules very well, they tend to enforce them to the letter, rather than have any question of interpretation arise that they might have to justify. Men have been dealing with applying the rules in a fair way since they were toddlers. They've been doing it since they first banded together to hunt mammoths. Women, on the other hand, don't have that long history of functioning that way. And when they are thrust into a position of authority, often really don't know how to handle it. Women have traditionally relied upon consensus in decision making. Whatever the group thinks is right. When there is no group to support them, they drop back to strict interpretation. It's no coincidence that as women have become more and more involved in school and business management we hear the terms "best practices" and "zero tolerance" more and more.

And now some of you will tell me that I'm sexist and should be ashamed of myself. There's really no practical difference between men and women in roles of authority. But I'm simply recognizing reality here. Yeah, that's an elephant over there. And trying to ignore it doesn't work very well.

It is pretty clear from the content above that you are more concerned with the length of your post than you are the content. I, on the other hand, will try to be short. If you find a law to be unfair you fight it. You do not simply ignore it and feel somehow entitled to do so. If you do chose to ignore it without making a proper stand then accept your fate when you are caught. Don't whine like a little girl. Saying "everyone else does it" doesn't work for my seven year old and it doesn't work for adults either.

PS: It is completely misleading to post that "charges were dropped" in this thread. Charges were not dropped. A plea bargain is completely different than charges being dropped.

 

[mjbskwim]

Aren't you missing the point? Just because something is law, doesn't mean that it is to be blindly obeyed. I'm pretty sure NYC state law regarding firearms doesn't override the constitution...

It's not about this guy, it's about what our country is becoming.

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but this video makes a good point.

The Chain of Obedience - YouTube

Great,then take the repercussions of your actions.
And don't complain about it.

If enough gun people just quit attending events,traveling to and just visiting New York and California,the money would stop and they would see a need to change.

Like the thread about traveling to CA with a gun. Why go there? Why go to NY?

Business? So your job is more important than your liberty?
That's more like compliance and surrendering to their ideals,instead of moving the meeting to a gun friendly state.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

It is pretty clear from the content above that you are more concerned with the length of your post than you are the content. I, on the other hand, will try to be short. If you find a law to be unfair you fight it. You do not simply ignore it and feel somehow entitled to do so. If you do chose to ignore it without making a proper stand then accept your fate when you are caught. Don't whine like a little girl. Saying "everyone else does it" doesn't work for my seven year old and it doesn't work for adults either.

PS: It is completely misleading to post that "charges were dropped" in this thread. Charges were not dropped. A plea bargain is completely different than charges being dropped.

OK, then, I'll state it more succinctly:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[mjbskwim]

OK, then, I'll state it more succinctly:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can I get a hit of what you are smoken tonight? Holly shyte brother.I have to go take some aspirin after reading your posts

The Marine and this doctor wanna be were wrong in carrying to NYC.That's all. "Elitist" or stupid,I'm not sure. If you didn't know that you couldn't carry in NY then you need some tuning up.

Unconstitutional or not,it is illegal in New York and they probably will pay a heavy price.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm sorry Jim, you're clearly not up to date with the legal stuff. You can't sue somebody for something in a court of law using a legal framework which that court of law does not recognize. Well, technically you can, but your case will be dismissed out right for lack of standing. Please read on the lawsuits brought by Second Amendment Foundation to get a better understanding of the problem.

You are incorrect, you can sue anybody for anything. I disagree that the "legal framework" is not recognized. If you sue everyone connected to the arrest, they have to defend themselves, it gets news, even if you lose the suit they have to spend their time and money defending the suit.

We're missing something. Some of you know I've been through something similar.

We don't know how big his legal bills were or who paid them. Mine were around $100k. I actually was defending three things, and counter-suing. Maybe he doesn't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars and be in New York to prove his point and get his gun back.

What we're missing is that he has a Federal complaint in Federal court for violation of his Federal constitution rights regarding search and seizure and the 5th for "takings" and who knows what else.

New York laws and courts are irrelevant and wouldn't be involved. For instance in Oregon we have the Circuit courts which handle Oregon law and the District courts which handle Federal law. Different states name their courts differently, but the principle is the same.

The District court in your county would have jurisdiction on a claim of violation of Federal constitutional rights for search and seizure, and your city, county and Oregon would have to suck it up.

Unless he thinks he could win a lot of money for violation of his Federal rights from New York in Federal court, or unless he thinks making a point is worth the time and money, he's personally better off to drop it.

Screw New York's laws. You can go right around New York to the Federal Court, the Federal appellate court, and ultimately the US SC if they'll hear your case. Your claims of violations of various Federal constitutional rights trump New York laws if the Federal courts agree with you on your complaints.