E Jean Carroll, writer who bested Trump in court, surrenders gun to police

Ok, so it’s an INTENTIONAL loophole that allows for the illegal transfer of firearms.

 

Accirding to @Turtledude , you are wrong about taking possession of a firearm.

 

More fake news and misinformation. Here is what he actually said:

The statute in NY refers to it as possession when you purchase or own a firearm without a license. You cannot take final possession without a license. Relevant statutes cited here, but explained in common English since this seems to be a point of awkward confusion for you to justify illegal possession of a firearm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

Thus, it doesn't matter how she acquired the handgun. It was illegal for her to possess it since she never had a license/permit. There are laws on the books in NY on what to do with inherited firearms and the like to stay within the legal boundaries. There is no way in which what she did was not a crime. The police didn't seize a lawfully possessed firearm. They took it from her because she was breaking the law.

 

I see. So now that they have seized he pistol , do you think they will prosecute ?

 

depends on the jurisdiction. NY still has several unconstitutional laws that should have been destroyed by Bruen

 

There's no such thing as an intentional loophole...lol

 

gun banners never seem to understand that it is already a federal felony for a felon to even possess a firearm. so when a felon buys a gun from a private seller, he can be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

 

A legal loophole is when you find a way to cheat the intent of a law. A legal loophole cannot be used to describe the intent of the law. That doesn't make sense. The intended outcome is not a loophole.

 

How does a law make gun ownership dangerous? The only thing that makes gun ownership dangerous is misusing it which has nothing to do with the gun or the law.

 

People willing to violate gun laws means they are more likely to violate other laws. If they had no nefarious intent, they likely would have followed the law like every other legal gun owner. I doubt she's a libertarian and against government regulation. The reason she didn't comply with the law is either because she doesn't care about obeying the law or because she didn't think she could legally obtain a permit/license with a background check.

 

NY just convicted Dexter Taylor for multiple charges of second-degree, third-degree, and criminal possession of a weapon. Perhaps he'll sue Donald Trump to help him on his sentencing. He claims Judge Abena Darkeh told him his defense wasn't allowed to mention the Second Amendment because the 2nd Amendment "doesn't exist" in NY. 13 charges in total. He also claims he attempted to file paperwork to preserve the statements for appeal, but the judge rejected his attempt to do so. The judge also refused to allow his family in the courtroom to show their support and declined to allow his neighbor, who knew about his hobby, to testify. Other arguments for appeal include the judge refusing to allow him to make a case for jury nullification despite citing case law saying judges shouldn't encourage it but can't prevent it.

These convictions hit the mandatory minimum 3.5-year sentence that would have applied to Carroll if she were charged with the crimes she admitted to. The 2nd-degree charges can come with a conviction of up to 15 years per charge. It sounds like he is guilty and knows he is guilty. He did illegally possess firearms in violation of the statute, just like Carroll. But he was hoping to appeal to the jury that the law was unfair.

This is Dexter:

 

Obviously enforcement is discretionary. Mandatory minimums mean the sentencing isn't discretionary, but that's a pretty ridiculous mandatory minimum. Seems like a bad law. You probably agree it's a bad law, you just want to see it used on somebody who wronged your hero.

 

Actually we conservatives do agree that such laws are bad. But she's the one that lives in a state where she votes for those laws.

If you're going to make the bed then it's on you to lie down in it.

In fact we conservatives continuously fight against just such laws, but we conservatives also believe that you state should be able to enforce your own laws. They made the law that affects her now she is at consequence to that law. But we know that nothing much will happen to her.

 

OK but I don't think owning a gun is dangerous. The danger is in how the gun is used. It can be used badly by any gun owner, legal or otherwise. I support many of the gun laws but I don't support those that interfere with ownership without some compelling reason. You are arguing gun laws and I am arguing the concept of ownership which is protected by the second amendment.

 

"we are the left! we stand on moral high ground! A misdemeanor is still a crime, and crimes come with punishment!"














"unless it's one of us..."

 

Yes, and I don't entirely disagree with you. I think the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not aware of any correlation between legal firearm ownership and violent crime. However, I'm sure there is a strong correlation between illegal firearm possession and violent crime.

 

kinda like Adultry is a crime and on the books in many States, but most are never charged

as far as this gun law, I doubt anyone would be charged as it's more of a bluff, cause the SC would kill it as it violates the 2nd

 

Adultery is a crime in NY and Florida, should we arrest Presidents for Adultery that commit Adultery in those States?

 

I wouldn't throw stones in glass homes.

 

OK. I'm not sure exactly what illegal gun ownership means. I have bought and sold guns from other people and from dealers. With dealers there are rules and forms and, sometimes, waiting periods. Buying a gun from another gun owner isn't illegal but does not involve all the governmental overhead. Convicted felons can't own guns legally but future felons can.

I remember one day at the trap range a man showed up to sell his trap guns. I bought one of them by writing a check to the man and used it that day. Nothing illegal there. No crimes involved. Not dangerous. Single barrel trap shotguns aren't normally used for anything else. Neither one of us thought anything about it. Perfectly legal.

I don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be.

 

True but not the point. The point is political prosecution which is not exactly on moral high ground despite coming from the left.














"unless it's one of us..."[/QUOTE]

 

If it was seized that is proof the not wit had illegal possession of the gun. And yes she should be charged.

 

In NY and many other strict liberal states, you need a firearms permit in order to own/possess a firearm, even if you acquire the firearm from a private transaction that doesn't go through an FFL. In NY, the mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a firearm without a permit is 3.5 years. They're very strict about it, and just yesterday, there was a story about someone who was convicted of this offense.

 

Yes laws vary from state to state. That is as it should be. State governments are closer to the people than federal government. In my view we have things backward. Federal government should provide services to the states as the constitution defines. States should do the governing. That is why we call them states rather than provinces or districts. States have competition from other states. If someone doesn't like the gun laws in New York he or she can move to another state that is closer to their preference. That isn't an option with federal government. Since federal government became central government, our freedoms have been compromised. What we have today is not what the founders had in mind. The Federalist Papers explain what the founders had in mind.

 

A lot of states exempt shotguns rom registration.