NY State SAFE act, enforced......

[DM1906]

Do you think the ACLU will become involved? This "suspect" was a passenger in a car, in lawful possession of a handgun (with "papers"). His handgun, secured out of his immediate possession, was seized and disassembled. The "suspect" was not suspected of any criminal activity prior to that event. The driver was stopped and cited for traffic infractions. According to the statewide enforcement policy of the "law" enforced for this arrest, the officer had no authority to "seize" the weapon, let alone disassemble it for any purpose.


http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/lockport/lockport-police-catch-flak-for-safe-act-arrest-20131016

[4949shooter]

The officer didn't seize the weapon according to the article. Same says the owner voluntarily handed over the pistol when the officer asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle.

The issue is whether or not the officer had the right to check the magazine. It depends on the courts but I say it would be a tough sell.

[Steve4102]

Do you think the ACLU will become involved? This "suspect" was a passenger in a car, in lawful possession of a handgun (with "papers"). His handgun, secured out of his immediate possession, was seized and disassembled. The "suspect" was not suspected of any criminal activity prior to that event. The driver was stopped and cited for traffic infractions. According to the statewide enforcement policy of the "law" enforced for this arrest, the officer had no authority to "seize" the weapon, let alone disassemble it for any purpose.


http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/lockport/lockport-police-catch-flak-for-safe-act-arrest-20131016

That's all we need is the Communist Party getting involved in our Second Amendment Rights!

[MCQUADE]

Thank God I live out in the country. Usually when I run up on a "license check" I'll notify the Trooper that I'm carrying a concealed weapon which in turn conjures the reply "what kind sir?". After I tell them I usually get the "pull your vehicle to the side of the road, sir". This is done in the name of safety of course because quite a few minutes will be spent on questions such as "how do you like it?", "what kind of load you keep in it", "how much they going for now", etc. etc. Heck, I have to fight the County Sheriff for our gunsmiths services.

[DM1906]

The officer didn't seize the weapon according to the article. Same says the owner voluntarily handed over the pistol when the officer asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle.

The issue is whether or not the officer had the right to check the magazine. It depends on the courts but I say it would be a tough sell.

The weapon, according to SCOTUS case decision, was seized. The weapon was stored out of his immediate possession, therefore it may not have met the "secure for officer safety" policy. If it did, and it may have, merely securing it for officer safety is not, in itself, a cause for disassembly and inspection of contents. Their policy is specific, and the weapon did end up in the officer's possession. With the several reports I've seen on this specific case, neither the passenger, nor his weapon, were subject to any violation, until the 3 rounds were located in the weapon. Probable Cause is required to "inspect" the contents of a firearm magazine, according to the law, and their own policy. No P.C. No crime.

NY's "7 round law" is poorly written, and nearly unenforceable, absent the weapon being a subject to another violation, or confiscation and inventory/safety reasons (such as evidence storage). There is no law requiring a magazine capable of holding only 7 rounds (as one does not exist for the pistol in question, yet). The law only requires a maximum of 7 rounds may be placed in it, with a few exceptions (range, private property, LEO's, etc.).

[4949shooter]

The officer didn't seize the weapon according to the article. Same says the owner voluntarily handed over the pistol when the officer asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle.

The issue is whether or not the officer had the right to check the magazine. It depends on the courts but I say it would be a tough sell.

The weapon, according to SCOTUS case decision, was seized. The weapon was stored out of his immediate possession, therefore it may not have met the "secure for officer safety" policy. If it did, and it may have, merely securing it for officer safety is not, in itself, a cause for disassembly and inspection of contents. Their policy is specific, and the weapon did end up in the officer's possession. With the several reports I've seen on this specific case, neither the passenger, nor his weapon, were subject to any violation, until the 3 rounds were located in the weapon. Probable Cause is required to "inspect" the contents of a firearm magazine, according to the law, and their own policy. No P.C. No crime.

NY's "7 round law" is poorly written, and nearly unenforceable, absent the weapon being a subject to another violation, or confiscation and inventory/safety reasons (such as evidence storage). There is no law requiring a magazine capable of holding only 7 rounds (as one does not exist for the pistol in question, yet). The law only requires a maximum of 7 rounds may be placed in it, with a few exceptions (range, private property, LEO's, etc.).

According to the article you posted, the weapon was not seized. The weapon was voluntarily handed over to the officer.

That having been said, you are correct in that the officer may not have had legal reason to check the mag. This is why in my above post I said this issue would be up to the courts to decide, but would be a tough sell.

[DM1906]

A Town of Lockport man who was a passenger during a traffic stop was charged when he turned over a loaded semiautomatic handgun in a holster from the glove compartment to an officer on Saturday.

If he did "turn over" the pistol, not at the request of the officer, it would certainly been a MUCH more dramatic encounter. The officer, who I assume was properly trained, wouldn't allow him to so much as reach for where the weapon was, let alone retrieve it, upon request or not. Although neither is advisable, nor instructed. If a weapon is to be retrieved and secured for the purpose of officer safety, the officer would have retrieved it himself. To allow the subject to retrieve it defeats the entire purpose, and places that officer in certain jeopardy. He would likely be disciplined for doing any such thing. In accordance with my training, any subject who so much as attempts to retrieve a weapon, holstered or not, would be proned on the ground (or worse) before he takes his next breath, ESPECIALLY during a traffic stop. Been there. Done that. Many times. If the officer saw it necessary to "secure the weapon for the purpose of officer safety", he would not have allowed the subject to retrieve it, nor would he have requested him to do so. If the pistol was ultimately in the possession of the officer, it would not have been by way of the subject spontaneously grabbing it and handing it to the officer, for any reason, whatsoever. If he "turned it over", it was at the request of the officer. Count on it.

[4949shooter]

A Town of Lockport man who was a passenger during a traffic stop was charged when he turned over a loaded semiautomatic handgun in a holster from the glove compartment to an officer on Saturday.

If he did "turn over" the pistol, not at the request of the officer, it would certainly been a MUCH more dramatic encounter. The officer, who I assume was properly trained, wouldn't allow him to so much as reach for where the weapon was, let alone retrieve it, upon request or not. Although neither is advisable, nor instructed. If a weapon is to be retrieved and secured for the purpose of officer safety, the officer would have retrieved it himself. To allow the subject to retrieve it defeats the entire purpose, and places that officer in certain jeopardy. He would likely be disciplined for doing any such thing. In accordance with my training, any subject who so much as attempts to retrieve a weapon, holstered or not, would be proned on the ground (or worse) before he takes his next breath, ESPECIALLY during a traffic stop. Been there. Done that. Many times. If the officer saw it necessary to "secure the weapon for the purpose of officer safety", he would not have allowed the subject to retrieve it, nor would he have requested him to do so. If the pistol was ultimately in the possession of the officer, it would not have been by way of the subject spontaneously grabbing it and handing it to the officer, for any reason, whatsoever. If he "turned it over", it was at the request of the officer. Count on it.

I am counting on my own knowledge, training, and experience. According to the article posted by you, the officer made an inquiry as to the presence of weapons in the vehicle. The subject then turned over the weapon to the officer on his own volition. Again, this is going on the veracity of the article you posted. The issue is to whether or not the officer had legal reason to check the rounds in the magazine. Again, I believe this will ultimately be up to the courts but will be a tough sell and I agree with you in this respect.

[DM1906]

You, being trained and experienced, would advocate an officer who bears some concern for his/her safety, to place or allow to be placed, the weapon of concern into the hand of the subject of concern? Oh, my. (but I don't really think that's the case)

If the story is written so poorly we understand it so differently, it isn't so surprising. I just don't see it that way.

[4949shooter]

You, being trained and experienced, would advocate an officer who bears some concern for his/her safety, to place or allow to be placed, the weapon of concern into the hand of the subject of concern? Oh, my. (but I don't really think that's the case)

If the story is written so poorly we understand it so differently, it isn't so surprising. I just don't see it that way.

Hoss, I never advocated for anything on this thread. I am just discussing the facts presented from the article you posted. If you don't believe it happened the way it says in your posted article then there is no point in carrying on with the discussion, except for the shared opinion that it is a lousy law.

[DM1906]

Sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like that. It wasn't serious (was a question, followed saying I didn't believe it to be true). That's the point, though. Just trying to figure where in the article it indicates the subject turned over the handgun, absent a request by the officer. While it doesn't say the officer demanded it, it also doesn't say the subject retrieved the handgun from the glove box, handled it, then handed it over. That doesn't make a bit of sense sense. If it did happen that way, that cop better find another career before he makes an entry on ODMP/LODD.

I suppose it may be an exercise in futility, trying to make sense of anything in NY, or my own state of CA, for that matter. The story was written by a local, afterall.

[4949shooter]

Sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like that. It wasn't serious (was a question, followed saying I didn't believe it to be true). That's the point, though. Just trying to figure where in the article it indicates the subject turned over the handgun, absent a request by the officer. While it doesn't say the officer demanded it, it also doesn't say the subject retrieved the handgun from the glove box, handled it, then handed it over. That doesn't make a bit of sense sense. If it did happen that way, that cop better find another career before he makes an entry on ODMP/LODD.

I suppose it may be an exercise in futility, trying to make sense of anything in NY, or my own state of CA, for that matter. The story was written by a local, afterall.

We can throw NJ into that mix as well..

[pacapcop]

As much as I DO NOT agree with Safe Act, the passenger followed up on requirements with exception of magazine. If firearm was used in self defense and a innocent bystander was struck we would hear the media whackers going full retard. Certainly the driver did not help matters. Carry extra mag's and practice your tactics would place a NY carrier in a better position and this is a moot issue. Officer was put on the spot and it's officer discretion. If officer allowed carrier to continue and pistol was used in self defense or whatever, officers are thinking about flak coming back.

[Steve4102]

  I look at this a little different then you guys.  You are looking at this as a violation of the gun owners rights by confiscating the weapon, then disassembling it.   I assume you are leaning towards an Illegal search and seizure.

  The way I see it is this.

But he said the department's role is to enforce the law, whether it is popular or not.

"It's on the books, and if we see it, we have to do something about it," Eggert said.

IMO "Popular" is a Politically Correct Word for Un-Constitutional. 

What I want to know is, where are all these LEO's that have opened up their big mouths claiming they will not enforce Un-Costitutional Laws.  According to this, these Laws are being enforced and will be enforced and that the LEO community will put job and pension before the Constitution any day of the week.

Several months ago the internet was packed full of LEO, Sheriffs and even a Police Chief or two claiming they will not  enforce Un-Constituional laws, so much for that BS.

Now that we know the LEO Community will follow orders and put job and pension before Country and Constitution, it will be no great shock when the orders to confiscate and seize come down from the top and every single LEO on the payroll will obey these orders.

The LE Community is gearing up with Military Grade weapons and Tactics to take on the American Citizen and destroy what is left of this Country.  Thanks LEO for "Protecting and Serving".

Remember this?

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Obama 2008 Campaign.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/15/is-everybody-blind-city-council-meeting-erupts-in-applause-after-ex-marine-issues-dire-warning-about-u-s-building-a-domestic-army/

  I will never disarm and hand over my carry piece to an LEO for simple inspection or to make him/her "Feel" better.  They cannot be trusted.

  Remember this? It's coming if not already here!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/david-hathaway/your-2nd-amendment-cop-buddy-will-take-your-guns/

[4949shooter]

Like Pacpcop said the decision to use discretion on the part of the officer is a personal thing. You don't like it Steve? Then don't carry more than 7 rounds in your mag when in NY State.

Personally, I take exception to your "big mouth LEO" comment. I don't see any "Big mouth" LEO's on this website. We don't like the law any more than you do.