Posted: 3/15/2013 6:05:43 AM EDT
Let me qualify this with the fact that I live in Florida so this neutering was just an experiment to see how it feels / fires for all my PRNY friends. I actually have been playing around with what feels better, bare hammerhead or stock screwing into hammerhead. Anyway, for those of you who want to go to ranges and not worry about being a test case for the law, this setup seems functional.
|
|
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling.
I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal |
|
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal It's more the pistol grip workaround and it follows the same contours of a e. fudd gun. In the configuration here, you can't even wrap your thumb around, instead it rests on the fw assist. I think CA case law would help if it went that far, however if a LEO were to go down the checklist of evil features they would get a goose egg. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal It's more the pistol grip workaround and it follows the same contours of a e. fudd gun. In the configuration here, you can't even wrap your thumb around, instead it rests on the fw assist. I think CA case law would help if it went that far, however if a LEO were to go down the checklist of evil features they would get a goose egg. But its an Ar-15 so it MUST be illegal 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal It's more the pistol grip workaround and it follows the same contours of a e. fudd gun. In the configuration here, you can't even wrap your thumb around, instead it rests on the fw assist. I think CA case law would help if it went that far, however if a LEO were to go down the checklist of evil features they would get a goose egg. But its an Ar-15 so it MUST be illegal Hmm.. I thought it was funky looking 5rd capable semi-auto varmint gun. 
|
|
Frankly, since the lower is one of the cheaper aspects of the AR platform.
I'd suggest a reconfigured lower sans pistol grip. Might need to go piston and move the return spring atop the barrel. I don't see any real viable alternative except ditching the gas system and conversion to a pump or straight-pull. |
|
Quoted:
Frankly, since the lower is one of the cheaper aspects of the AR platform. I'd suggest a reconfigured lower sans pistol grip. Might need to go piston and move the return spring atop the barrel. I don't see any real viable alternative except ditching the gas system and conversion to a pump or straight-pull. The grip on this build is not a pistol grip, it's a rifle grip. We'll see if it holds up in court, I am sure that people trying to comply will get nabbed in an overzealous jurisdiction and all this will get tested until the law gets modified back towards common sense. |
|
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? |
|
Quoted:
and all this will get tested until the law gets modified back towards common sense. That's a nice thought but unless it goes to the Supreme Court and overturned there, the majority of idiots in NY think the law is just fine or doesn't go far enough. While each new shooting would make it obvious to rational people the law is a failure, all the sheep out there will probably thank the Safe Act for the carnage not being greater. Logic will never matter to someone who thinks owning a gun is a crime, they are too far gone to be that reasonable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
and all this will get tested until the law gets modified back towards common sense. That's a nice thought but unless it goes to the Supreme Court and overturned there, the majority of idiots in NY think the law is just fine or doesn't go far enough. While each new shooting would make it obvious to rational people the law is a failure, all the sheep out there will probably thank the Safe Act for the carnage not being greater. Logic will never matter to someone who thinks owning a gun is a crime, they are too far gone to be that reasonable. I cannot see this law being upheld... I still have a little faith in humanity. That being said, the ammo restrictions are something I am equally concerned about. John Smith bought 1000 5.56 rounds, but John Smith doesn't have a "registered weapon." I don't want my names on ANY database... I'm not a criminal or a sex offender. This is an unreasonable restriction. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? The way I see it, no one needs to be the test case. As of right now, according to the "law" we all have a 30 day grace period if caught (after the year is up) with an unregistered "assault weapon" as long as we say we didn't know. This is a great way to test whatever we want and find out if it's good to go or not. It's like a mulligan in golf. " sorry officer, my understanding of the law is as long as my semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine didn't have any other ban features it didn't need to be registered" Well, at least it sounds good. |
|
Re: The Exile grip used. NY has no legal definition as to what a pistol grip is other than basically being below the receiver. It would be possible to call this grip a short pistol grip. Exile tried to get something in writing from NY approving their product but, of course, no commitment from NY.
Disclaimer from Exile site: NEW YORK STATE CUSTOMERS: If you have concerns about the legality of using the Hammerhead AR-15 Stock Adapter as part of your NY-SAFE compliant rifle, we recommend you consult an attorney before purchase. We have sold many of these into New York state, including to attorneys and police officers. If you remove all the prohibited features [Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the penal law, (A)(I-VII) as amended by S2230-2013] from your rifle, you do not have an assault weapon and do not need to register it.2 To avoid any confusion with prohibited pistol grips, we strongly recommend using the Hammerhead with a buttstock screwed into the back of the product (Type I or Type II config) and not as a standalone grip (Type III config). Note they recommend attaching the stock to the grip, not at the buffer tube as the OP did. Still the risk of compliance is as your own. The truth is that NY doesn't want any means of constructing a non AW. Why the law is so obscure and will depend on court case law to really define it. |
|
Quoted:
Re: The Exile grip used. NY has no legal definition as to what a pistol grip is other than basically being below the receiver. It would be possible to call this grip a short pistol grip. Exile tried to get something in writing from NY approving their product but, of course, no commitment from NY. Disclaimer from Exile site: NEW YORK STATE CUSTOMERS: If you have concerns about the legality of using the Hammerhead AR-15 Stock Adapter as part of your NY-SAFE compliant rifle, we recommend you consult an attorney before purchase. We have sold many of these into New York state, including to attorneys and police officers. If you remove all the prohibited features [Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the penal law, (A)(I-VII) as amended by S2230-2013] from your rifle, you do not have an assault weapon and do not need to register it.2 To avoid any confusion with prohibited pistol grips, we strongly recommend using the Hammerhead with a buttstock screwed into the back of the product (Type I or Type II config) and not as a standalone grip (Type III config). Note they recommend attaching the stock to the grip, not at the buffer tube as the OP did. Still the risk of compliance is as your own. The truth is that NY doesn't want any means of constructing a non AW. Why the law is so obscure and will depend on court case law to really define it. The laws actually says 42 (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of 43 the weapon; protrudes - 3rd person singular present of pro·trude (Verb) Verb Extend beyond or above a surface con·spic·u·ous (kn-spky-s) adj. 1. Easy to notice; obvious. 2. Attracting attention, as by being unusual or remarkable; noticeable. The word "action" is used to describe the way a gun functions. It may also be used to denote the mechanically-operable portion of the gun, less the barrel and magazine. A gun's action is its heart. This where the loading and firing mechanisms come together to form a working firearm and to dictate the way in which it functions. Since the trigger group is part of the action of a weapon, then as far as I'm concerned, the exile grip does not protrude conspicuously beneath the action. Again, just how I see it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. Lol. No. No prosecutor is going to rely on what the state police say. Unlike the atf, they are not a legal authority. Hint of advice: there is no intent element under cpw 2 under 265.03(3)-there is only a "knowing" element. The knowing element has nothing to do with whether you knew the rifle was an assault weapon. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It also has nothing to do with mens rea. Lol. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. Lol. No. No prosecutor is going to rely on what the state police say. Unlike the atf, they are not a legal authority. Hint of advice: there is no intent element under cpw 2 under 265.03(3)-there is only a "knowing" element. The knowing element has nothing to do with whether you knew the rifle was an assault weapon. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It also has nothing to do with mens rea. Lol. I can tell you are probably not a lawyer. LOL Neither am I, but I do have just a little time in Court. Mens Rea has to do with every criminal case. I f someone reasonably believes something is legal, it is very difficult to convict. And only people who don't know any better quote the old "ignorance of the law" nonsense. This has nothing to do with that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. Lol. No. No prosecutor is going to rely on what the state police say. Unlike the atf, they are not a legal authority. Hint of advice: there is no intent element under cpw 2 under 265.03(3)-there is only a "knowing" element. The knowing element has nothing to do with whether you knew the rifle was an assault weapon. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It also has nothing to do with mens rea. Lol. And a JUDGE decides the LAW. NOT the prosecutor. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. Lol. No. No prosecutor is going to rely on what the state police say. Unlike the atf, they are not a legal authority. Hint of advice: there is no intent element under cpw 2 under 265.03(3)-there is only a "knowing" element. The knowing element has nothing to do with whether you knew the rifle was an assault weapon. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It also has nothing to do with mens rea. Lol. I can tell you are probably not a lawyer. LOL Neither am I, but I do have just a little time in Court. Mens Rea has to do with every criminal case. I f someone reasonably believes something is legal, it is very difficult to convict. And only people who don't know any better quote the old "ignorance of the law" nonsense. This has nothing to do with that. You didn't have to tell me you are not a lawyer. Lol. Mens Rea doesn't have anything to do with a strict liability statute. Please point to me where "intent" is an element of CPW 2 -- 265.03(3). Here, I'll even give you a link to the NY criminal jury instructions. http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/cji3.html With your "little time in court", you should know that a judge relies on: (a) legal precedent i.e. case law; and (b) statutory authority. So please explain how a trial court judge can rely on a nonbinding letter from the state police--a letter that the state police would never issue in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trouble is no one that has the authority to do so will confirm that stock work arounds like this will result in a non aw ruling. I am telling people to not change anything until there is some concrete ( as in policy letter from Nysp) saying this results in no registration required. With any luck we will have some legal systems victories that will negate this crap but if not more info is needed. Unfortunately the history of our previous awb was that there was never any technical rulings on what was and was not legal A letter from the state police is meaningless. It's a matter for the courts. Who wants to be the test case? Anyone? Anyone? That is not exactly correct. A letter from the State Police is not BINDING on a Court. However it is persuasive. As well, if the person relied upon a letter of legality from the State Police to complete some act, it would be practically impossible to prosecute him for that act, as he would lack the requisite criminal mental intent, also known as mens rea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea In other words, if you reasonably believe something to be legal, because the legal authorities gave you written permission to do it, you do not have a guilty mind. I had a case around 20 years ago in NYC where a guy was arrested with an Uzi in a gym bag, and he was indicted for CPW, the Uzi being a "firearm". However, there was a letter from the State Police to FFL dealers in the State that declared that the Uzi was a RIFLE and could be legally sold over the counter as such. When a Judge reviewed the letter, after a hearing, the case went away. This was, of course, before the NYC AW ban. Not that it would have mattered, it is/was only a misdemeanor under the Admin Code to possess a "banned" rifle. Lol. No. No prosecutor is going to rely on what the state police say. Unlike the atf, they are not a legal authority. Hint of advice: there is no intent element under cpw 2 under 265.03(3)-there is only a "knowing" element. The knowing element has nothing to do with whether you knew the rifle was an assault weapon. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It also has nothing to do with mens rea. Lol. I can tell you are probably not a lawyer. LOL Neither am I, but I do have just a little time in Court. Mens Rea has to do with every criminal case. I f someone reasonably believes something is legal, it is very difficult to convict. And only people who don't know any better quote the old "ignorance of the law" nonsense. This has nothing to do with that. You didn't have to tell me you are not a lawyer. Lol. Mens Rea doesn't have anything to do with a strict liability statute. Please point to me where "intent" is an element of CPW 2 -- 265.03(3). Here, I'll even give you a link to the NY criminal jury instructions. http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/cji3.html With your "little time in court", you should know that a judge relies on: (a) legal precedent i.e. case law; and (b) statutory authority. So please explain how a trial court judge can rely on a nonbinding letter from the state police--a letter that the state police would never issue in the first place. If you had actually read my post, two things would be evident: 1. We are not talking about a trial judge, we are talking about hearings before trial. At trial, you would be asking a jury to believe he has not criminal mental culpability. 2. I had a case where exactly that happened. and BTW, THAT law is NOT a strict liability statute. The Dram Shop law is. Learn the difference. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you had actually read my post, two things would be evident: 1. We are not talking about a trial judge, we are talking about hearings before trial. At trial, you would be asking a jury to believe he has not criminal mental culpability. 2. I had a case where exactly that happened. and BTW, THAT law is NOT a strict liability statute. The Dram Shop law is. Learn the difference. Just wow.
Let me give you a little procedural history 101. Once a case is indicted by the prosecutor, the case is heard by a trial court judge. In general, the only pretrial hearings involved in the prosecution of CPW cases under article 265 are "suppression hearings." As I said before, a judge can rely on 2 things--legal precedent and statutory authority. A letter from a police department is not legal authority. For simplicity, I provided you a link to the New York pattern jury instructions--these are the pattern instructions read to juries all over the state.You obviously are unfamiliar with the elements of the CPW statute. Why don't you do a little research?  You'll find the elements under 265.02(7) (possession of an assault weapon) and 265.03(3) (possession of a loaded firearm not in your home or place of business) don't include "intent" only "knowingly." Knowingly does not mean intent. For example, a person doesn't even need to know that his firearm was either operable or loaded. Whether a person knew that his conduct was illegal based on bad legal advice from the police is not going to toss an indictment. Sorry, you're going to actually have to cite some statutory authority for that one. Lol. It only may avoid getting you indicted in the first place--a decision the prosecutor makes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you had actually read my post, two things would be evident: 1. We are not talking about a trial judge, we are talking about hearings before trial. At trial, you would be asking a jury to believe he has not criminal mental culpability. 2. I had a case where exactly that happened. and BTW, THAT law is NOT a strict liability statute. The Dram Shop law is. Learn the difference. Just wow.
Let me give you a little procedural history 101. Once a case is indicted by the prosecutor, the case is heard by a trial court judge. In general, the only pretrial hearings involved in the prosecution of CPW cases under article 265 are "suppression hearings." As I said before, a judge can rely on 2 things--legal precedent and statutory authority. A letter from a police department is not legal authority. For simplicity, I provided you a link to the New York pattern jury instructions--these are the pattern instructions read to juries all over the state.You obviously are unfamiliar with the elements of the CPW statute. Why don't you do a little research? You'll find the elements under 265.02(7) (possession of an assault weapon) and 265.03(3) (possession of a loaded firearm not in your home or place of business) don't include "intent" only "knowingly." Knowingly does not mean intent. For example, a person doesn't even need to know that his firearm was either operable or loaded. Whether a person knew that his conduct was illegal based on bad legal advice from the police is not going to toss an indictment. Sorry, you're going to actually have to cite some statutory authority for that one. Lol. It only may avoid getting you indicted in the first place--a decision the prosecutor makes.Obviously you have never been in a court room, but you read it on the Internet so it must be true. The CJI is a PATTERN of instructions, Judges alter them to fit the facts of the case, but I would not expect you to know that. A Judge can CERTAINLY conduct probable cause hearing, even after indictment. It is done all the time. If the act complained of can be shown to not rise to the level of criminality, the Court can dismiss and the People can appeal. And BTW the more recent CJI was written by committee, headed by the late Justice Steven Fisher. They got their lunches sent in by Max's luncheonette. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you had actually read my post, two things would be evident: 1. We are not talking about a trial judge, we are talking about hearings before trial. At trial, you would be asking a jury to believe he has not criminal mental culpability. 2. I had a case where exactly that happened. and BTW, THAT law is NOT a strict liability statute. The Dram Shop law is. Learn the difference. Just wow.
Let me give you a little procedural history 101. Once a case is indicted by the prosecutor, the case is heard by a trial court judge. In general, the only pretrial hearings involved in the prosecution of CPW cases under article 265 are "suppression hearings." As I said before, a judge can rely on 2 things--legal precedent and statutory authority. A letter from a police department is not legal authority. For simplicity, I provided you a link to the New York pattern jury instructions--these are the pattern instructions read to juries all over the state.You obviously are unfamiliar with the elements of the CPW statute. Why don't you do a little research? You'll find the elements under 265.02(7) (possession of an assault weapon) and 265.03(3) (possession of a loaded firearm not in your home or place of business) don't include "intent" only "knowingly." Knowingly does not mean intent. For example, a person doesn't even need to know that his firearm was either operable or loaded. Whether a person knew that his conduct was illegal based on bad legal advice from the police is not going to toss an indictment. Sorry, you're going to actually have to cite some statutory authority for that one. Lol. It only may avoid getting you indicted in the first place--a decision the prosecutor makes.Obviously you have never been in a court room, but you read it on the Internet so it must be true. The CJI is a PATTERN of instructions, Judges alter them to fit the facts of the case, but I would not expect you to know that. A Judge can CERTAINLY conduct probable cause hearing, even after indictment. It is done all the time. If the act complained of can be shown to not rise to the level of criminality, the Court can dismiss and the People can appeal. And BTW the more recent CJI was written by committee, headed by the late Justice Steven Fisher. They got their lunches sent in by Max's luncheonette. A probable cause hearing IS a suppression hearing that has nothing to do with whether a person knew a firearm was legal. This is true whether you are talking about Ingle, Mapp or Dunaway. Heck, even Wade and Huntley have nothing to do with knowledge of the law.
Not to be mean or attack you personally, but you clearly don't understand the function of a probable cause hearing. I'm not going to wait for you to go to law school, pass the bar, and get some actual trial court experience. If you would like for me to explain in more detail procedural issues, I don't mind educating you. I use the CJI as a way to explain the law to non-lawyers like yourself. They quite nicely articulate the elements of a charge and provide some nice definitions.
Again, for the third time, cite the portion of 265.02(7) or 265.03(3) that require intent. Hint: it doesn't exist. Let me guess...you're a court room deputy? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I AM DONE BEATING A DEAD HORSE. Deputy- I'm still waiting. I leave my offer open. I'll be happy to educate you or anybody else. I've always had a tremendous amount of respect for court staff. DH. That was one of the most entertaining reads on the HTF in a long time... |