A man who sought to avoid paying the $2.25 fare a a Manhattan PATH
station ended up with some serious prison time after he was caught
carrying an illegal weapon.

37-year-old Ruben Sanabria was stopped by Port Authority officers last
March after he jumped the 14th Street station's turnstile.

While looking him over, the officers noticed Sanabria was gesturing
towards his waistband area and proceeded to search him.

They soon discovered Sanabria was packing a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson
loaded with so-called "cop killer bullets."

Sanabria tried to make a run for it, but was quickly apprehended and
arrested.

"This defendant illegally carried a loaded semi-automatic firearm into
a public transportation system used by thousands of people every day,"
said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. "The officers who
apprehended him did so at great personal risk. Preventing gun violence
is one of my top priorities as District Attorney, and I will make sure
that this Office continues to seek strong sentences for crimes
involving firearms."

Sanabria pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the
second degree, and was sentenced to seven years behind bars.

http://gawker.com/5983953/turnstile-...ears-in-prison

Here is some advice from Chris Rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

--
Stephanie: What did you do today?
Leonard Hofstadter: Well, I'm a physicist, so I just thought about stuff.
Stephanie: That's it?
Leonard Hofstadter: I wrote some of it down.

And therein lies the secret to intelligent life.

Intelligent life will see the practical benefits in not attracting attention to one's self when one is doing something illegal.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:04:01 +0000, nestork
wrote:


And therein lies the secret to intelligent life.

Intelligent life will see the practical benefits in not attracting
attention to one's self when one is doing something illegal.

No one accused the guy of being "intelligent" :-\
--
""Dumb is local...As soon as you go 15 miles away from your dumbness, you see how dumb you are."- Sherrod Small

Never break two laws at the same time. Although what happens is that
the person gets used to breaking one law and doesn't even think about
it anymore. So he's only aware that he's breaking that second law.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:59:34 -0500, Metspitzer
wrote:

A man who sought to avoid paying the $2.25 fare a a Manhattan PATH
station ended up with some serious prison time after he was caught
carrying an illegal weapon.

37-year-old Ruben Sanabria was stopped by Port Authority officers last
March after he jumped the 14th Street station's turnstile.

While looking him over, the officers noticed Sanabria was gesturing
towards his waistband area and proceeded to search him.

They soon discovered Sanabria was packing a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson
loaded with so-called "cop killer bullets."

Sanabria tried to make a run for it, but was quickly apprehended and
arrested.

"This defendant illegally carried a loaded semi-automatic firearm into
a public transportation system used by thousands of people every day,"
said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. "The officers who
apprehended him did so at great personal risk. Preventing gun violence
is one of my top priorities as District Attorney, and I will make sure
that this Office continues to seek strong sentences for crimes
involving firearms."

Sanabria pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the
second degree, and was sentenced to seven years behind bars.

http://gawker.com/5983953/turnstile-...ears-in-prison

Here is some advice from Chris Rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:33:51 -0500, micky
wrote:

Never break two laws at the same time. Although what happens is that
the person gets used to breaking one law and doesn't even think about
it anymore. So he's only aware that he's breaking that second law.

"Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law". Courts have ruled; not
knowing a law will not get you off of the charge.

Criminals never think when committing a crime - hey I might get the
death penalty. They always think they will never be caught. They are
smarter than the law :-\

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:33:51 -0500, micky
wrote:

Never break two laws at the same time. Although what happens is
that the person gets used to breaking one law and doesn't even think
about it anymore. So he's only aware that he's breaking that
second law.

"Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law". Courts have ruled; not
knowing a law will not get you off of the charge.


Addendum: You are perfectly right. But ignorance of the FACTS is often an
excuse. For example, suppose carrying a firearm in your car is illegal in
your jurisdiction (sorry, it must suck to be you) but your wifte,
unbeknownst to you, keeps a pistol in the glove-box. You run an errand using
her car.

For some innocuous reason, the cops look things over and find the gun!

Your defense is that your wife put it there without your knowledge or
consent and you have her and your next-door neighbor ready to testify along
those lines.

There's a fair to middling chance you'll skate on the gun charge, especially
if your wife is matronly and believable. That, plus your neighbor being the
parish priest.

On Feb 14, 7:38*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:33:51 -0500, micky
wrote:

Never break two laws at the same time. * Although what happens is
that the person gets used to breaking one law and doesn't even think
about it anymore. * * So he's only aware that he's breaking that
second law.

"Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law". Courts have ruled; not
knowing a law will not get you off of the charge.

Addendum: You are perfectly right. But ignorance of the FACTS is often an
excuse. For example, suppose carrying a firearm in your car is illegal in
your jurisdiction (sorry, it must suck to be you) but your wifte,
unbeknownst to you, keeps a pistol in the glove-box. You run an errand using
her car.

For some innocuous reason, the cops look things over and find the gun!

Your defense is that your wife put it there without your knowledge or
consent and you have her and your next-door neighbor ready to testify along
those lines.

There's a fair to middling chance you'll skate on the gun charge, especially
if your wife is matronly and believable. That, plus your neighbor being the
parish priest.

You know, I'm no fan of NYC's mandatory 3 year prison
term for anyone found with an illegal gun, because it
does snare folks who are actually law abiding citizens
who just happened to make a mistake. Like driving
into NYC from a state with differing laws, without
realizing they still had a gun in their car. Or some
unlucky travelers who've had their flights diverted
to NYC. They wind up having to stay the night, retrieve
their luggage which has a gun that they legally checked
before boarding. The go off a hotel for the night, return
the next day to board their flight, produce the gun to
check it in again, and are instead arrested. Off to jail
for 3 years......

But, I finally heard one good aspect to the mandatory
sentence. The NYC polics hava a policy, which the libs
hate, of having street cops stop anyone that they find
suspicous for just about any reason. If they find that
person with an illegal gun, it's off to jail for 3 years for
them too. So, apparently, the young hoodlums, gang
bangers, etc all have learned this. Some are already
in jail vial that route. Most of the others no longer
routinely carry guns. That in turn means that when they
see someone with the wrong colors or looking at them
the wrong way, they don't have a gun in their hands to
start shooting.

And that could be a key difference in why NYC has a
low gun murder rate while Chicago is a killing field.
Not saying I'm happy with NYC gun law, and I think there
should be exemptions for the truly law abiding guy
who just happens to wander in. Maybe something like
if you have no criminal record, including juvenile, then
you can be exempted from the mandatory sentence.
I would think that the vast majority of guys the cops
find with guns who are doing the street violence like
you have in Chicago would already have some arrest
record.

wrote:

But, I finally heard one good aspect to the mandatory
sentence. The NYC polics hava a policy, which the libs
hate, of having street cops stop anyone that they find
suspicous for just about any reason. If they find that
person with an illegal gun, it's off to jail for 3 years for
them too. So, apparently, the young hoodlums, gang
bangers, etc all have learned this. Some are already
in jail vial that route. Most of the others no longer
routinely carry guns. That in turn means that when they
see someone with the wrong colors or looking at them
the wrong way, they don't have a gun in their hands to
start shooting.

Yep. That's one of the adverse unintended consequences of the law. See
below.


And that could be a key difference in why NYC has a
low gun murder rate while Chicago is a killing field.
Not saying I'm happy with NYC gun law, and I think there
should be exemptions for the truly law abiding guy
who just happens to wander in. Maybe something like
if you have no criminal record, including juvenile, then
you can be exempted from the mandatory sentence.
I would think that the vast majority of guys the cops
find with guns who are doing the street violence like
you have in Chicago would already have some arrest
record.

You seem to be operating under the notion that these killings are
regretable. While some may be, the vast majority are a blessing.

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:10:07 PM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:
You seem to be operating under the notion that these killings are
regretable. While some may be, the vast majority are a blessing.

Don't you ever watch the news after these killings? According to the families of the deceased and various assorted bystandars, they're always model human beings, never done nothing to nobody and didn't deserve to die.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:38:37 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




There's a fair to middling chance you'll skate on the gun charge, especially
if your wife is matronly and believable. That, plus your neighbor being the
parish priest.



What if your wife is hot and wears a low cut blouse at the hearing?

Every bit helps in keeping guns off the streets.
The fewer gangstas carrying guns, the fewer people shooting, and the fewer innocent bystanders getting killed in the cross fire.

I expect that the NYPD exercises it's discretion on who to arrest carefully. There may be a minimum prison term if you're caught, arrested, tried and convicted of breaking that gun law. But there's the police, the judges and the appeal process that also serve to separate the wheat from the chaff at every step along the way so that the truly law abiding guys don't also end up in jail. Otherwise the politicians would get voted in by promising to reduce taxes by changing a law which punishes the innocent at taxpayer's expense.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:27:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:10:07 PM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:
You seem to be operating under the notion that these killings are
regretable. While some may be, the vast majority are a blessing.

Don't you ever watch the news after these killings? According to the families of the deceased and various assorted bystandars, they're always model human beings, never done nothing to nobody and didn't deserve to die.

There, you would be wrong. They are animals and deserve to be shot,
just as they would do to you for blinking at them. Their "families"
should have thought about the consequences of their lifestyle decades
before.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:49:09 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:38:37 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




There's a fair to middling chance you'll skate on the gun charge, especially
if your wife is matronly and believable. That, plus your neighbor being the
parish priest.



What if your wife is hot and wears a low cut blouse at the hearing?

Are you saying that she has two 38s? They're not supposed to be
displayed in the courtroom.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:29:31 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:28*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:24:18 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:00*am, wrote:
...

I've heard of such cases but I've not seen a believable discussion of
the results (post trial).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's interesting. *I had not heard of that provision before.
Here is what it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or
regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person
who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting,
shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a
firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may
lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation
the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition
being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from
the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That
in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the
driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a
locked container other than the glove compartment or console. "

But the reason the above apparently does not protect you
in the airport cases, is that when you retrieve your luggage
to go to the hotel for your overnight stay, the weapon is readily
accessible. *You would be in the same jeopardy
if you were traveling by car through a state with strict gun laws
and you took the gun from your car to your hotel room.
The NYC situation is particularly bad because of the volume
of passengers at those airports and JFK in particular being
a major hub.

If you lock it in a shipping container? *Again, I'd like to see
documentation where the law was followed and the person was arrested
and convicted anyway. *It wouldn't surprise me that NY would ignore
the law but I'd rather not go by Usenet hearsay. *...another reason to
travel by car.- Hide quoted text -


How's this:

New York (CNN) -- A leader of a Tea Party group was arrested Thursday
at New York's LaGuardia Airport while in possession of a handgun,
prosecutors said.

Mark Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, was detained
Thursday morning during preflight check-in, according to a Queens
District attorney statement.

Meckler told a Delta Airlines ticket agent about the Glock 27 pistol,
which was in a locked gun box alongside more than a dozen 9mm
cartridges, the statement said.

The ammunition should be separated from the weapon.

He has been charged with second-degree criminal possession of a
weapon, a felony that carries up to 15 years behind bars.

"Before leaving home, passengers should acquaint themselves with the
weapon laws of the jurisdiction that they are visiting and comply with
any and all legal requirements if they choose to travel with a
weapon," said District Attorney Richard A. Brown. "Otherwise, they may
find themselves being arrested and charged with a felony, as is what
occurred in this case."

Better than Usenet hearsay but I did say:

"It wouldn't surprise me that NY would ignore the law..."

Brian Stapleton, an attorney for Meckler, issued a statement saying
his client abided by the law.

"Mark Meckler, an attorney and National Coordinator for Tea Party
Patriots, who holds a concealed-carry permit from the state of
California, today was charged with a firearms violation at LaGuardia
Airport in New York City," Stapleton said in the statement.

"While in temporary transit through the state of New York in
possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm that was locked in a
(Transportation Security Administration)-approved safe, he legally
declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the
ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by TSA and
the airline, yet was arrested by port authority for said possession."


And the disposition:

"A prominent tea party activist who pleaded guilty to disorderly
conduct Thursday after being arrested at LaGuardia Airport last month
for trying to board a flight with a gun is speaking out against New
York City authorities for refusing to return his firearm, calling it
“government robbery.”

Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, was arrested in
December after he attempted to check in for a Delta Airlines flight
with a locked box containing a Glock pistol and ammunition. According
to the New York Post, after Meckler pleaded guilty to disorderly
conduct, he was sentenced to a conditional discharge and fined $250.


Read mo http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz2LBLtRF7L


So you could argue that he wasn't technically convicted of
the gun charge because it was plea bargained down. But
he does wind up with an arrest and conviction record and
no gun. I would suspect that a lot of these cases get plea
bargained down, but you still have the joy of being arrested,
booked, held, and paying thousands in lawyer fees to keep
your freedom.

I'm surprised the NRA didn't get involved.

Also, as far as being reasonable, are you aware that NY state
considers a loaded gun to be one where the ammo is just in
close proximity to the gun? So, if they stop you and you have
the gun in a bag in the trunk and there is ammo in the bag,
it's considered a loaded weapon? How's that for reasonable?

Which is why, when I travel through NY, I don't take ammunition with
me. It can (in normal times) be bought at any Walmart.

Thanks for the reference, though. It does prove that the official NY
is as lawless as I always knew it was. I'll certainly refrain from
visiting there as much as possible.

So, what you're saying is that because there were cartridges in the same locked box as the gun, the gun was deemed to be "loaded".

I think that would be a precedent setting case. It seems to me that the law only requires that the gun be "unloaded", which it was. In Canada and the US, we're supposed to follow "the black letter of the law", which means that the law is exactly what's written, and "interpretation" of what's written shouldn't add anything to it or remove anything from it. In this case, if some NY judge has interpreted the word "loaded" to mean "in close proximity to ammunition", then that's something that needs to be reviewed. When you consider that any reasonable person reading the paragraph above would NOT have seen any need to keep the ammunition in a separate locked box from the gun, then I can't see how the charges would have stuck. Are we now supposed to read into the law everything the authorities want to be written into it, but which isn't?

I'd have let them take me to court on this one, and I would have asked the judge to tell them to give me my gun back too.

On 02-16-2013 16:23, wrote:
The "Firearms Owners Protection Act" allows one to transport weapons,

FOPA, pronounced "faux pas"

I support that bill, but I still couldn't resist.

--
Wes Groleau

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise according to his own conceit.
€” Solomon
Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool?
€” Groleau

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:25:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:27:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:



On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:10:07 PM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:

You seem to be operating under the notion that these killings are

regretable. While some may be, the vast majority are a blessing.



Don't you ever watch the news after these killings? According to the families of the deceased and various assorted bystanders, they're always model human beings, never done nothing to nobody and didn't deserve to die.

There, you would be wrong. They are animals and deserve to be shot,
just as they would do to you for blinking at them. Their "families"
should have thought about the consequences of their lifestyle decades
before.

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:41:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:25:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:27:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:



On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:10:07 PM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:

You seem to be operating under the notion that these killings are

regretable. While some may be, the vast majority are a blessing.



Don't you ever watch the news after these killings? According to the families of the deceased and various assorted bystanders, they're always model human beings, never done nothing to nobody and didn't deserve to die.

There, you would be wrong. They are animals and deserve to be shot,
just as they would do to you for blinking at them. Their "families"
should have thought about the consequences of their lifestyle decades
before.

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you.

Sarcasm doesn't work well in print.

wrote:

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you.

Sarcasm doesn't work well in print.

I will give your observation all the attention it deserves.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:21:01 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Obviously my sarcasm was lost on you.

Sarcasm doesn't work well in print.

I will give your observation all the attention it deserves.

I'm sure you will.