Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

[slayer202]

No, but it speaks to his character and said character is backed up by his actions. He was trying to do the right thing, and no one was hurt in any way shape or form.

An "impartial system", which is what ours theoretically is, should judge him impartially without assuming he's some madman bent on a killing spree who was trying to smuggle his gun into NYC and deserves to be behind bars for 15 years for the safety of society.

unfortunately in this case, the law is the law. It would be nice to have some leeway to judge different scenarios appropriately, but that freedom would occasionally be abused, which I assume is why the law is the way it is.

but obviously he isn't at risk of 15 years. the minimum two is still excessive. but he still should have known. I don't think his status as a marine should have any bearing here

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Well if there was no malicious intent he will get a warning. What would the reasonable man would've done. Everyone makes honest mistakes and the courts are not as tight asses as most would think

 

[irishScott]

unfortunately in this case, the law is the law. It would be nice to have some leeway to judge different scenarios appropriately, but that freedom would occasionally be abused, which I assume is why the law is the way it is.

but obviously he isn't at risk of 15 years. the minimum two is still excessive. but he still should have known. I don't think his status as a marine should have any bearing here

I'm an idealist who believes in discretionary court rulings in minor matters such as this. He would have been a greater danger speeding on route 95, and even for that he would have only gotten a minor fine.

I doubt it will, but I hope this goes to the supreme court and mandatory minimum sentences of such a long period are deemed illegal.

 

[alkemyst]

Well if there was no malicious intent he will get a warning. What would the reasonable man would've done. Everyone makes honest mistakes and the courts are not as tight asses as most would think

I don't think you grasp the problem mandatory minimum sentences create.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is what happens when you make knee jerk zero tolerance laws.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

if I were the marine, I'd post bail and get out of dodge, your country you risked your life for has failed you and there is no shame on turning your back on them(until the law is overturned at least)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

could be worse I guess he could have been arrested and taken to gitmo indefinitely.

 

[sactoking]

It's a way to avoid retarded situations like the one in the OP. As for states rights, states are required to recognize each other's drivers licenses, and that doesn't even have the backing of the United States Constitution. Why should something guaranteed by the 2nd amendment be treated any differently?

Actually, I believe there is no legal requirement forcing states to recognize another's driver's license. All of the states do so anyway due to reciprocity; if California didn't recognize Oregon then Oregon would stop recognizing California and the residents would get mad. In fact, in some respects certain states already don't recognize other's licenses: when I moved to NV I was told that my CA DL was not deemed a valid form of picture ID since CA's requirement to issue a license was less stringent than NV's, in regards to proving one's identity.

 

[irishScott]

Actually, I believe there is no legal requirement forcing states to recognize another's driver's license. All of the states do so anyway due to reciprocity; if California didn't recognize Oregon then Oregon would stop recognizing California and the residents would get mad. In fact, in some respects certain states already don't recognize other's licenses: when I moved to NV I was told that my CA DL was not deemed a valid form of picture ID since CA's requirement to issue a license was less stringent than NV's, in regards to proving one's identity.

Huh. Good to know. I thought there was a court case back in the 40s or something that established required reciprocity, maybe I heard wrong.

 

[Mike Gayner]

That said - he obviously shouldn't receive the penalties outlined in NY law. This is just a flaw of their laws.

The problem isn't the law per se, it's minimum sentencing requirements, which are draconian and idiotic.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

unfortunately in this case, the law is the law. It would be nice to have some leeway to judge different scenarios appropriately, but that freedom would occasionally be abused, which I assume is why the law is the way it is.

but obviously he isn't at risk of 15 years. the minimum two is still excessive. but he still should have known. I don't think his status as a marine should have any bearing here

Well, inasmuch as this is the law, the ability of the President/state governors to commute/pardon is also the law. Correcting misjustices like this is the kind of thing that should be receiving attention from the President/governors, and not 20 years later, either.

Having looked at a few of the pardons that have been issued, hell most of them are for people either long dead, or have already served their sentence, or weren't even sentenced to any meaningful time.

 

[Lifted]

The penalty should have a minimum fine included with an 'and/or' for minimum sentence to allow for such cases. I'd say $20,000 would get the point across.

There is no excuse not to know the gun laws in NYC. First google result was quite clear on the matter.

FYI, these strict laws are for handguns. Riffles and shotguns still require a license and must be stored at home, and transported in a car or a case, but they can be owned by just about anybody in NYC without a criminal history. Not sure what the penalty is for discharging one on a home invader. Can't be worse than death.

 

[Tweak155]

The problem isn't the law per se, it's minimum sentencing requirements, which are draconian and idiotic.

Does the law contain the minimum sentence? Whatever the issue is, it needs to be fixed, as the problem is apparent when the law is enforced.

 

[BoomerD]

All states have general parity with their laws. No state allows you to simply go around thievin and robbing and killing, for example.

The problem is that in such a free travel country, if you're going to let every state enact laws with tough penalties which wouldn't even be illegal in another state, nor are even considered wrongful acts by general morality, gun permits is just one example, well, then states should have a responsibility to provide support for their citizens in trouble in other states in the same way that the country as a whole does when its citizens are in trouble in a foreign country.

I mean, if there was no federal restrictions on states' rights, what if an individual state decided it was going to re-enact prohibition? Then you would have trucking companies having to re-route around that state to deliver alcoholic products to stores, you'd have tourists being arrested left and right for bringing alcohol on vacation and you'd have people on this forum saying they should have read the law before taking beer to another state...

And they'd be right. As much as I think this thing is wrong...the guy was a legal CCW holder and was trying to obey the laws, it's incumbent on him to check the laws of any state in which he wants to carry.
Same with medical marijuana...just because it's legal in your state and you have a MMJ card, that doesn't mean all states will honor or accept that...and you can get tossed in jail, subject to the law of that state if you're caught in possession.

HOPEFULLY, common sense will prevail in this case and charges will be dropped...but if I was him, I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

 

[IGemini]

Does the law contain the minimum sentence? Whatever the issue is, it needs to be fixed, as the problem is apparent when the law is enforced.

It does. Unlawful possession of a loaded pistol is a class D felony, which gives a 2-year minimum.

 

[HAL9000]

The stereotypical US liberal:

pro-abortion
pro-taxes
pro-universal gov. provided healthcare
pro-business regulation and more regulation in general
pro-stem cell research
pro-marijuana legalization
pro-gun control
anti-religious
anti-military/industrial complex

Both sides are for and against big government as suits their rhetoric, but liberals tend to have more rhetoric that suits big government. Conversely the stereotypical conservative has less big government rhetoric, but more big business rhetoric.

Righto, sounds like I am a liberal for the most part, fair enough. The Democrats are the liberal ones and the Republicans are the conservatives yes?

I googled the republican candidates recently they all seem very backward IMO, homophobic crazy christian nut jobs. So I'm OK being on the democrat side.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Does the law contain the minimum sentence? Whatever the issue is, it needs to be fixed, as the problem is apparent when the law is enforced.

Over here sentencing is controlled by the Sentencing Act, not the Crimes Act. Unsure about over there.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

And they'd be right. As much as I think this thing is wrong...the guy was a legal CCW holder and was trying to obey the laws, it's incumbent on him to check the laws of any state in which he wants to carry.
Same with medical marijuana...just because it's legal in your state and you have a MMJ card, that doesn't mean all states will honor or accept that...and you can get tossed in jail, subject to the law of that state if you're caught in possession.

HOPEFULLY, common sense will prevail in this case and charges will be dropped...but if I was him, I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

They would be right in terms of the current law, but when laws are wrong or unjust, people shouldn't just shrug their shoulders and say dura lex sed lex, but get it changed.

The "law" is nothing more than the latest version of a work eternally in progress as devised by the elected representatives of the people. It is not infallible and can in fact result in injustices. Which matters very little to people who emphasize the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.

And technically, you're suggesting that they do wrong in the letter of the law by dropping charges, because, well, it IS the law, isn't it? That's why bad laws simply shouldn't be left to stand, or at least, bad aspects of the law, such as minimum sentencing requirements. One day a citizen who should have the charges dropped might fall on the desk of an ambitious prosecutor who wants to add to his conviction count. Another day they fall on the desk of someone with common sense, and where's the justice in that?

 

[Fingolfin269]

This is just another case where minimum sentencing is shown to be a lazy way to write laws.

 

[Bateluer]

There needs to be a nationwide open carry law.

 

[Nebor]

Why do buildings in NYC bother to put up "No Guns" signs? They may as well put up "No Murder," "No crystal meth" and "No rape" signs. At least then they'll catch the percentage of criminals that are inclined to turn themselves in at the sight of a sign.

 

[Sonikku]

Oh, the joys of small government. When Federal government "gets out of peoples lives" and defers to the states to have the judgment to have whatever laws they want. Feel bad for the guy.

 

[Blitzvogel]

I'll never understand why every state in America acts independantly from one another there seems to be no national law over there, it's like continent not a country.

United States. While yes, this is one country, states are given their own degree of sovereignty when it comes to many matters and some laws, hence why you have major legislation, execution, and judiciary on both the state and national levels. What is interesting is the argument about where indeed do individual state's rights begin and end. It's part of why the Civil War occurred. Of course yes, slavery was the catalyst, but it was in large part a war to preserve the Union, not necessarily to end slavery. State's rights were the central issue as to why, starting with South Carolina, the southern states started seceding. The abolition of slavery was just a result of the war.

There is no doubt that the rights of individual states in the EU are always in question, especially considering how much more arguably diverse Europe is in comparison the the US.

 

[davmat787]

I'll never understand why every state in America acts independantly from one another there seems to be no national law over there, it's like continent not a country.

The EU seems to have more common laws than the US.

States rights is a good thing IMO, the US is a very large and diverse country. What people want, and what works in say Montana may not be good for the population in say Vermont.

Look at it this way, some states have passes civil unions, allowing the gays to marry. They have set a precedent, one that would not be if it had to be passed for the entire country. As other states realize NY has not been smited by god or eaten by the sea for allowing civil unions, perhaps other states will pass similiar laws.

That is just one example I thought you could identify with.

 

[gmaster456]

Seeing as how its new york. I'm not the least but surprised. The land where 30 round magazines are banned because you can kill too many people with them. Because its not like you can kill the same amount of people with 3 10 round magazines . That and pre ban magazines are still legal, and you can replace every part of it, and still have it be legal which makes the law useless. Whats to stop a criminal from using a pre ban magazine? Although, at least NY isn't CA