Judge tosses out SAFE act charge against lockport man.

[Travis_0004]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/lockport/judge-tosses-out-safe-act-charge-against-lockport-man-20140226

A man was arrested for having more than 7 rounds in a magazine. The judge threw out the charge, "Once the magazine is removed from the firearm, the firearm cannot fire. At that point in time, the search of the firearm should have ceased. But the officers went further. … It was a search without a warrant.”"

Sounds like a good ruling to me.

[Duckhunter935]

1. good

[Electric Monk]

2. That's like saying once a car is stopped and searched, it is no longer transporting guns

(or drugs, or whatever contraband) across state lines. Y'know, since it's now stopped and all.

[Straw Man]

3. No. It isn't. Not at all.

That's like saying once a car is stopped and searched, it is no longer transporting guns

(or drugs, or whatever contraband) across state lines. Y'know, since it's now stopped and all.

In a "Terry Stop" (see Terry v. Ohio), the officer, in the absence of probable cause, can only search as far as is necessary to ensure his/her safety. Once the officer has taken control of the gun, removed the magazine, and cleared the chamber, he/she is presumed to be safe. Continuing to search the magazine to see how many rounds it contains is beyond the permissible limits.

It's interesting to speculate on what would constitute probable cause to search a magazine for how many rounds it contains. I'm not coming up with anything remotely plausible. This is probably why a federal judge in western New York ruled against that particular section of the SAFE Act and why the governor is not pushing it. Y'know, since it's unenforceable and all.

[Electric Monk]

4. Admit it, you would take the side of the gun, no matter what the story. It's why you are here on DU.

nt

[Straw Man]

5. Run out of arguments, have we?

Admit it, you would take the side of the gun, no matter what the story. It's why you are here on DU.

Nothing to offer but slurs and genetic fallacies? Tut tut.

Would you care to comment on the point of law that I described? I'll wait.

[Electric Monk]

6. (See? he's not a lawyer, therefor my hair is a bird!)

Saved you the trouble.

Good night

[Straw Man]

7. An opinion would do. Do you have one?

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

(See? he doesn't know every minutae of the laws of every state, therefor my hair is a bird!)

Terry vs. Ohio was a Supreme Court decision: hardly minutiae. It represents a very important limitation on police powers. Perhaps you'd care to comment on it as described. No research or prior knowledge is necessary.

Again, I'll wait.

(Minus points for the edit by the way. Trying to pretend you didn't say something rather than responding to criticism of what you said? Stay classy ...)

[Electric Monk]

10. It makes for a nice catch-22. It's against the law to have a mag loaded with too many bullets

in your gun, but you can't count them while in the gun, and as soon as the mag is out of the gun (where the bullets could be counted by removing them) it is no longer illegal.

Maj. Major Major Major: Sergeant, from now on, I don't want anyone to come in and see me while I'm in my office. Is that clear?

First Sgt. Towser: Yes, sir. What do I say to people who want to come in and see you while you're in your office?

Maj. Major Major Major: Tell them I'm in and ask them to wait.

First Sgt. Towser: For how long?

Maj. Major Major Major: Until I've left.

First Sgt. Towser: And then what do I do with them?

Maj. Major Major Major: I don't care.

First Sgt. Towser: May I send people in to see you after you've left?

Maj. Major Major Major: Yes.

First Sgt. Towser: You won't be here then, will you?

Maj. Major Major Major: No.






re: the edit, I'm not an idiot and I saw you had already quoted me. I was refining the point I had been trying to make. Thanks.

[Straw Man]

12. Therefore unenforceable.

Except perhaps to add a charge to someone who is manifestly guilty of something else.

re: the edit, I'm not an idiot and I saw you had already quoted me. I was refining the point I had been trying to make. Thanks.

OK, that sounds plausible. With the new edit system, it's difficult for the casual reader to know who is accurately quoting whom.

You're welcome.

[hack89]

8. And you would take the side of the police, no matter what the story

if it involved guns. Not all of us have your unwavering respect for government authority.

[Electric Monk]

9. I'm not a big fan of the cops, either.

I think a better analogy is, in a conflict between a sailboat and a motorboat, I'd tend to take the side of the sailboat. In a conflict between an armed civilian and an un-armed civilian, I tend to take the side of the unarmed civilian. In a conflict between an automobile and a cyclist or pedestrian, I'll tend to side against the automobile driver. Might does not automatically make right, but in fact, actually confers greater responsibility.

[hack89]

11. But here you are supporting the cops violating established law regarding searches

only, I am assuming, because it involved guns.

This is a common theme held by some here regarding guns - "police and the government bending the rules is ok if it makes us safer." Which is a attitude straight out of the Patriot Act.

[Straw Man]

13. In other words ...

I think a better analogy is, in a conflict between a sailboat and a motorboat, I'd tend to take the side of the sailboat. In a conflict between an armed civilian and an un-armed civilian, I tend to take the side of the unarmed civilian. In a conflict between an automobile and a cyclist or pedestrian, I'll tend to side against the automobile driver. Might does not automatically make right, but in fact, actually confers greater responsibility.

... you operate under a system of prejudices based on the presumption that the weak can do no wrong. Yet here you are siding with the police against an armed civilian. How do you explain that?