TexasCHLforum.com

I still don't understand exactly what it is they are charging him with. Could it be the 19 round mag? NY only allows 10 round mags max. Otherwise, is no one allowed to transport a weapon in NY?

ARTICLE 265
FIREARMS AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS
Section 265.00 Definitions.
265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
265.03 Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
265.04 Criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the first degree.

. . .

S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
(1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon
in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five
of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or
(2) Such person possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell,
firearm silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating
a machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or
(3) Such person knowingly possesses a machine-gun, firearm, rifle or
shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
(5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or (ii) such
person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
did not take place in the person's home or place of business; or
(6) Such person knowingly possesses any disguised gun; or
(7) Such person possesses an assault weapon; or
(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

. . .

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include
an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

...the article doesn't say he had a large capacity magazine...we may not know what they actually charged him with until it gets court time...reports say 9mm ammo...he's from CA...has a CA CHL...they don't allow hi-cap mags either...more likely he had a ten and a nine...

I believe they also reduce the charge to some kind of misdemeanor. It's been a while since I researched this.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...........or....just stay the heck away from that God-forsaken place.

I did exactly that 30 years ago when embarking on my career after college graduation.

It's over. He plead guilty. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/nyreg ... harge.html

stroo wrote:I believe they also reduce the charge to some kind of misdemeanor. It's been a while since I researched this.

...you were right on...I'm glad...coulda ruined his gun rights for life...this way, after a year it didn't happen...I'm really surprised at such a low fine...but the misdemeanor's a good thing compared to what they could have hung on him...

I still don't understand what he did wrong. He wasn't trying to carry on his CA license. He was travelling and sounds like he was only trying to check in with it according to the airline's and or TSA's rules. I don't understand.

...if the info we got is right...I don't think he did anything wrong...he was legal where he came from...legal where he was going...the only thing I can see is if he stayed like overnight in NY and took his gun/luggage with him...thereby making a break in his travelling status...and losing his protection under that law...

boba wrote:It's over. He plead guilty. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/nyreg ... harge.html

The prosecutor put another notch in their belt and brought in some revenue, while sidestepping a bigger mess. Glad it didn't turn out worse for the the man in the story. However, he does have to report the loss of his handgun to the State of California. More paperwork...

I hope the CHL traveler from Columbus OH gets off as easy.

As I understand it.

The second he took possession of that gun IN NY, he was illegal. Regardless of his interstate traveling status, it was ok for the airline to have it in his luggage as he and the luggage passed though NY.. But once he took the luggage from the airline, the hand gun was in his possession..

A out of state traveler, or one without a NY issued license to OWN a hand gun is only covered for traveling with it, so long as it is in possession of the airline, or whoever is transporting it .
As soon as the traveler takes possession,, and has no valid NY issues license, he is wrong. He can not in any case, be legal with a hand gun in his possession and without a NY issued license.

This has bit travels even when they are trying to do the right thing, laid over in NY, required by the airline to claim their baggage, which has a legal, and corrected packaged handgun IAW federal and state laws where they started the trip from.. Once that suite case is in their hands, in NY law, they are wrong, and has been shown, they have no legal way to deal with it. Try and ship it at an NY FFL. WORNG, it is in your hands, already illegal. Try and re check it at a NY Airport. WRONG you will be detained and arrested.

...we have a bumper sticker down here in Texas that kind of expresses my deepest heart-felt feelings regarding New York...

Here is a blog from Mark Meckler with details on the incident. NY PD will not return his gun back. Should sue the pants of NYC.

http://www.markmeckler.com/nyc-gun-char ... speak-out/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bronco78,

You have stated NY's views right. But it isn't the law. If you are traveling through and spend the night in a hotel, you are still traveling. And therefore protected by the Federal law.

NY settles this for low fines because it knows it would lose a challenge. And the people charged pay because they don't want to go through the hassle etc of trial. That doesn't mean NY is acting legally, it isn't.