|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 16, 2012 15:32:27 GMT -5
 Marine arrested for carrying Indiana-registered handgun in New York made 'honest mistake,' attorney saysHe was carrying $15,000 worth of gold to visit a Long Island-based refinery he was interested in doing business with. By Cristina Corbin Published January 16, 2012 | FoxNews.com A third-generation Marine arrested in New York City after trying to check his Indiana-registered handgun with security made an "honest mistake" and should not face prison time, his attorney said Monday. Ryan Jerome, a 28-year-old former private first class whose father and grandfather were Marines, faces three and half years in prison after being arrested Sept. 27 for carrying a .45-caliber Ruger that was legally registered in his home state. Jerome, of West Bend, Ind., had approached security officers at the Empire State Building to check the weapon before he was taken into custody, according to his attorney, who said it was the man's first visit to New York City. "Ryan Jerome is neither a criminal nor someone with an illegal gun," his attorney, Mark Bederow, said in an interview with FoxNews.com. Read more: www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/16/marine-arrested-for-carrying-legal-gun-in-new-york-made-honest-mistake-attorney/ |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 16, 2012 16:32:15 GMT -5
While ignorance of the law has never been a legal defense, it is NOT the legally owned guns society needs to worry about. It is the illegally possessed guns that are the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jan 16, 2012 16:42:54 GMT -5
While ignorance of the law has never been a legal defense, it is NOT the legally owned guns society needs to worry about. It is the illegally possessed guns that are the problem. bloomberg however is on a blind mission to make examples of any law abiding citizen carrying guns in his juris diction those of us who carry under the leo safety acts of 2004 and 2010 have had to put up with the same nonsense until a federal circuit court judge told the manhatten da that it is the law of the land for leo's and to stop making arrests and prosecutions cause he will throw all of them out the da only complied when the judge started fining the city legal fees for the leos who had to defend themselves |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 16, 2012 17:08:05 GMT -5
Bloomberg and the whole "mayors against guns" BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 16, 2012 17:52:16 GMT -5
Swimmy mentioned a legal concept here on the forum that I assume the NRA could/will use and it has something to do with assumed reciprocity between states' laws that evidently has a Constitutional basis. Something about, if it's legal in one state or jurisdiction it's legal in all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 16, 2012 18:13:05 GMT -5
Here we go again. DUH!
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 16, 2012 18:50:08 GMT -5
Swimmy mentioned a legal concept here on the forum that I assume the NRA could/will use and it has something to do with assumed reciprocity between states' laws that evidently has a Constitutional basis. Something about, if it's legal in one state or jurisdiction it's legal in all. full faith and credit clause I think it was. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 16, 2012 21:18:49 GMT -5
I guess we can play lawyer while Swimmy is evidently engaged elsewhere. Here's what wiki says at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause"The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision,[3] although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]" I'm not sure I understand the last sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 16, 2012 21:29:40 GMT -5
Bloomberg and the whole "mayors against guns" BS. I guess if I was a mayor I'd be sympathetic. Glad I'm not, however. I think in a situation where everyone has a gun and is killing each other, Second Amendment rights probably come in a distant second to addressing the problem of stopping the killing. Unfortunately, gun laws are often based upon these urban problems and will result in the mass removal of our gun rights. Not good. I'm convinced that as wrong headed as it is, it will happen. We'll eventually lose our right to guns. Then we will no longer be truly safe. |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 17, 2012 0:53:05 GMT -5
And the guy that causes us to lose those rights……….
……….will be almost as unhappy as the poor SOB that tries to come and take them from us. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 18, 2012 1:27:24 GMT -5
 I might be mistaken but hasn't this been a known law in NY City for many years now? I remember it wasn't too long ago that even a police officer from outside NYC couldn't even carry their weapons into the city. That I think was changed about 6 years ago for police officers. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 18, 2012 1:58:52 GMT -5
I suppose you might be aware of the law if you live in New York State, but many more don't.
I couldn't tell you what the specific CCW laws are for Chicago, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami, Houston OR Indianapolis.
I don't even know if they have any specific to their municipalities, but I've been to all of them.
Some folks just figure if you have a permit to carry, you have a permit to carry....period.
I bought my first .357 on my lunch hour when I lived in Texas City, brought it to work and then home that day (no 3 day wait back then), worked for the city, shot it at the city range and carried it all over the south when I was traveling....never gave it a second thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 18, 2012 9:26:02 GMT -5
A badge carrying friend who is originally from the City tells me it is illegal for him to carry in New York City while off duty, but he would not expect to be harassed by the NYPD, especially as a former son and a currently retired P.O.
If a person legally obtains a pistol in NewYork State and reads only half the paperwork, he will know that his permit does not cover the City. And not that we would expect anyone to read it, but it says so right on the permit. But as Ralph points out, if you got your gun and/or permit in Missouri and drove with it on your person from Independence to Staten Island, there's no telling how many laws you might break.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jan 18, 2012 14:48:17 GMT -5
laws about things not actions suck! He may have broken the law but he hurt absolutely nobody, victimless crimes, exercising your 2nd degree rights is against the law and regulated like a Vice in regions of NY and elsewhere.
They can keep NYC, I dont need to visit any place where Police Officers and criminals are the only ones packing heat!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jan 18, 2012 15:28:23 GMT -5
If you live in upstate NY you DO need to visit NYC JR if you ever want to see YOUR tax dollars at work. You will see that type of result in NYC more evident than in Utica, Rome or Syracuse where results garnered by your tax dollars SHOULD be evident. Heck go on down there and take a ride on a subway train, you are paying for it with your upstate taxes so you might as well enjoy it.
|
|
I might be mistaken but hasn't this been a known law in NY City for many years now? I remember it wasn't too long ago that even a police officer from outside NYC couldn't even carry their weapons into the city. That I think was changed about 6 years ago for police officers. 
