Author Topic: Prosecution of NY veteran with 5 x 30rd AR mags (Read 4648 times)

AZRedhawk44 · « **on:** January 30, 2013, 03:58:22 PM »

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/LeRay-Man-Faces-Weapons-Possessions-Charges-185853881.html

Quote

A town of LeRay man was accused Sunday of possessing high-capacity magazines for an assault rifle.

Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies say 32 year old Nathan Haddad allegedly had five 30-round magazines for an AR-15 rifle in his possession.

Police say the magazines were found during a vehicle check on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay.

Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.

He's got a chip-in legal fund started.

http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc#description

Over $5500 in there as of the start of this thread at APS.

I'm chipping $20 in.

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2013, 04:14:47 PM »

In for $20.

dm1333 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2013, 04:40:52 PM »

I wonder how this is going to play both in court and in the news? Those magazines have been banned in NY since the original 94 ban.

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Regardless, I'm kicking in.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2013, 04:44:28 PM »

Quote from: dm1333 on January 30, 2013, 04:40:52 PM

I wonder how this is going to play both in court and in the news? Those magazines have been banned in NY since the original 94 ban.

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Regardless, I'm kicking in.

Good on you.

BTW, he believes the mags are pre-94 ban magazines.

geronimotwo · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2013, 04:53:49 PM »

Quote from: dm1333 on January 30, 2013, 04:40:52 PM

I wonder how this is going to play both in court and in the news? Those magazines have been banned in NY since the original 94 ban.

that depends, if they were "pre-ban" ('94) mags, they are legal until next jan.

dm1333 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2013, 04:55:00 PM »

Yeah, let me rephrase that. Magazines bought after the 94 ban are illegal. I have no way of knowing when that guy bought those particular magazines or when they were built.

I'd be curious about what the courts are going to say about the first person who gets caught with a mag between 8-10 rounds. This whole thing is disgusting.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2013, 05:03:05 PM »

Quote from: dm1333 on January 30, 2013, 04:55:00 PM

Yeah, let me rephrase that. Magazines bought after the 94 ban are illegal.

No. Magazines manufactured after the 94 ban are illegal.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2013, 05:48:56 PM »

Another $20. This should be interesting.

zxcvbob · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2013, 05:56:29 PM »

I bet the police who arrested him were also in violation of the new law at the time.

(AFAIK, they haven't amended it yet to exclude LEOs)

Jim147 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2013, 06:03:16 PM »

Here's to hoping there isn't a paper trail, like a credit card receipt that can be tracked back to Brownells for a five pak of 30 rounders or that he didn't chose a manufacture that wasn't in business before '94.

I'll chip in as soon as I catch up my own bills.

jim

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2013, 09:53:01 PM »

Hold on if chipping in.

This afternoon, the "goal" on the chip-in was $10k.

Now, the goal is printed as $100k.

No explanation as to why the goal went tenfold higher.

I've emailed the organizers of the chip in site the following:

Quote

Why did the goal change today from $10k, which is a reasonable amount for a legal defense, to $100k? That's enough money to start a foundation. It is suspicious. I've donated $20 earlier today when the goal was $10k. There's no reason to suspect that this case will cost $100k. This feels like a breach of trust, without an explanation as to the dramatic shift in goals.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2013, 10:14:36 PM »

I received a VERY prompt email response to my concerns:

Quote

I am ahead of my self. My intentions at the start of this was to raise a few hundred bucks to help my brother. It's become so much more than that now. I want to help as many vets as possible and yes that means ill have to start a foundation of sorts your not the first to point this out to me and I realize now it can and does look fishy. I am not home right now to get on the computer to add the reasons behind the changes. I plan on adding an update and an explanation as well. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other concerns and or suggestions about this

You are also welcome to call me and discuss this further. XXXYYYZZZZ is my cell number

Thank you Michael HADDAD

Number redacted for politeness.

dm1333 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2013, 11:09:09 PM »

Quote

No. Magazines manufactured after the 94 ban are illegal.

Everything wrong that happened from June of 1965 up to now is my fault!

Having said that, I'm still curious how this is going to turn out. And when somebody is going to challenge this from the ex post facto point of view.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:36:43 AM »

Any additional details concerning this "vehicle check"?

geronimotwo · « **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:15:47 AM »

Quote from: zxcvbob on January 30, 2013, 05:56:29 PM

I bet the police who arrested him were also in violation of the new law at the time. (AFAIK, they haven't amended it yet to exclude LEOs)

according to a local state trooper, their commissioner has given the order for all troopers to be in compliance with the new law (7 rounds max in mag).

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:22:58 AM »

Quote from: geronimotwo on February 03, 2013, 08:15:47 AM

according to a local state trooper, their commissioner has given the order for all troopers to be in compliance with the new law (7 rounds max in mag).

But are the mags themselves larger than 10 rounds?

geronimotwo · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:33:10 AM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on February 03, 2013, 08:22:58 AM

But are the mags themselves larger than 10 rounds?

yes, which is a fuzzy part of the law as individuals are given 12 months to sell their non complient mags out of state, but i still give them kudos for trying to remain within the law.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:48:46 AM »

Quote from: geronimotwo on February 03, 2013, 08:33:10 AM

yes, which is a fuzzy part of the law as individuals are given 12 months to sell their non complient mags out of state, but i still give them kudos for trying to remain within the law.

Wait, if they have 12 months to sell the normal capacity mags, that begets the question, why is this guy getting gigged now for having 5 ar mags?

zxcvbob · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2013, 10:17:11 AM »

AFAIK under the old law, >10 round mags were illegal unless manufactured before 1994. THAT'S probably what he is being charged with, not the new 7-round law.

Frank Castle · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2013, 01:09:18 PM »

Money sent !

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:14:46 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on February 03, 2013, 08:48:46 AM

Wait, if they have 12 months to sell the normal capacity mags, that begets the question, why is this guy getting gigged now for having 5 ar mags?

Don't forget, NY was one of the states with its own AWB that didn't go away when the Federal ban expired. Others are CA, CT and MA (and NJ?). The CT AWB doesn't (at least, at the moment) restrict magazine capacity. The NY AWB did.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2013, 09:59:53 PM »

Quote from: zxcvbob on February 03, 2013, 10:17:11 AM

AFAIK under the old law, >10 round mags were illegal unless manufactured before 1994. THAT'S probably what he is being charged with, not the new 7-round law.

This is correct.

News:

Author Topic: Prosecution of NY veteran with 5 x 30rd AR mags (Read 4648 times)