Retiree That Legally Defended Himself Sentenced to Prison in New York

[Moon68]

By any standard, it was a massive cache of weapons.  No?

Not particularly.

I'd call it a good start at a collection

[Oldcarpy2]

Not particularly.

I'd call it a good start at a collection

But, an illegal one.

[Moon68]

But, an illegal one.

In that State.

There would be no issue in most American states. In fact, the only thing that made that collection illegal was that he hadn't paid New York's extortion fees.

[Oldcarpy2]

In that State.

There would be no issue in most American states. In fact, the only thing that made that collection illegal was that he hadn't paid New York's extortion fees.

The law is the law.

Deal with it.

[PorkChop96]

Apart from possessing and using an illegal firearm, that is.

Why should he have his conviction "thrown out"?

He pleaded guilty, you know.

"Full retard"?!!!

Charming.

What cause did they have to search his house? 

This also comes from the same state that just threw out the death penalty for the guy who murdered that healthcare CEO because "they should not have searched his backpack when they arrested him". 

Of course he did. That is what NY does, they make these bullshit plea deals with people they know can't afford to go through court for years and years to fight their overreach. 

You're equating a US citizen defending himself against a criminal that sought to harm him with a guy that assaulted and resisted federal agents while armed with a firearm. Yeah, full retard fits pretty well.

[PorkChop96]

By any standard, it was a massive cache of weapons.  No?

Not by a long shot. You'd faint if you knew what would be considered a "massive cache" in the US. 

And as another user has already mentioned, the only thing making them illegal was the unconstitutional tax that he had not paid to the almighty overreaching overlords.

[Oldcarpy2]

What cause did they have to search his house? 

This also comes from the same state that just threw out the death penalty for the guy who murdered that healthcare CEO because "they should not have searched his backpack when they arrested him". 

Of course he did. That is what NY does, they make these bullshit plea deals with people they know can't afford to go through court for years and years to fight their overreach. 

You're equating a US citizen defending himself against a criminal that sought to harm him with a guy that assaulted and resisted federal agents while armed with a firearm. Yeah, full retard fits pretty well.

I am equating nothing of the sort.

What cause?

They had a Court warrant, because he held an unlicensed firearm.

Turned out, he had an awful lot more.

Yeah, but resort to personal insults instead of reasoned discussion.

Colour me unsurprised

[PorkChop96]

I am equating nothing of the sort.

What cause?

They had a Court warrant, because he held an unlicensed firearm.

Turned out, he had an awful lot more.

Yeah, but resort to personal insults instead of reasoned discussion.

Colour me unsurprised

That is exactly what you did, deny the fact all you want. We can go back to copy and paste it here again if you want? False equivalencies hold no weight here 


Was he at home when he shot and killed the man? What was the need to search his home? 

If you hit and kill someone with your unregistered car, do they then get to go and search your house for more unregistered cars? No  But, because it had to do with an unregistered, and otherwise legal, firearm they went at him with both barrels to make sure something stuck. How dare he take one of their hard working criminals off the street. 


Don't act like one, and you will not be labeled as such......

[UltraBudgie]

**Mod. snip**

there is a strong consensus of opinion among a large portion of the population that new york's regulations are an unconstitutional infringement of the law, not valid laws in themselves

the opinion holds that it is the politically and ideologically motivated democrat majority in new york that are ignoring the law, the highest law of the constitution, when they find it expedient

thus making the statement "the law is the law" laughable, because local ordinances do not trump the constitution

the parallel was made to states and sanctuary cities choosing not to enforce federal immigration laws, which are also quite clear

i hope this clears things up for you and perhaps discharges some of the emotive rhetoric



Edit: for clarity, the "mod-snip" was a quote of a now-deleted post, not anything I said...

[Moon68]

**Mod. snip**

there is a strong consensus of opinion among a large portion of the population that new york's regulations are an unconstitutional infringement of the law, not valid laws in themselves

the opinion holds that it is the politically and ideologically motivated democrat majority in new york that are ignoring the law, the highest law of the constitution, when they find it expedient

thus making the statement "the law is the law" laughable, because local ordinances do not trump the constitution

the parallel was made to states and sanctuary cities choosing not to enforce federal immigration laws, which are also quite clear

i hope this clears things up for you and perhaps discharges some of the emotive rhetoric

Indeed, the legal maleficence of the political cabals that inhabit places such as NY, Chicago, DC and other blue cesspools very much makes the case for national reciprocity laws.