Gun Control

Three Arrests Illustrate the Impact of New York's Silly Seven-Round Ammunition Limit

|

Office of the Governor

The Washington Free Beacon notes three cases in which gun owners were arrested for violating New York's new limit on the number of rounds you can put in a magazine. If these arrests are typical, it seems safe to conclude that the seven-round rule is just as silly as it sounds.

Last May state police pulled over Gregory Dean, a 31-year-old resident of Hopewell Junction, in New Lebanon because his license plate was not illuminated. According to a statement from state Sen. Greg Ball (R-Patterson), "Troopers found Dean with a legally registered pistol with a magazine that contained nine bullets, two more than the recently passed 'SAFE Act' allows." It's a bit mysterious how the troopers knew the magazine contained more than seven rounds. According to a state police guide issued last September, "Unless there is probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not it contains more than 7 rounds….Absent some indication of criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe Act." That may explain why Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka decided not to prosecute Dean for this offense, which is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine.  

Last month's arrest of Paul Wojdan in Buffalo seems similarly suspect. Wojdan was legally carrying a pistol in a car driven by his girlfriend, who was pulled over for speeding. While the officers were justified in checking that Wojdan had a permit, it's not clear how they determined that his magazine contained 10 rounds instead of seven. Here is what the state police guide says about a situation like this:

If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing the firearm and conducting an inventory of its contents. In this case, the inventory would include checking the magazine in order to account for each round. However, if the person produces a permit and there are no indications of unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would be unnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter. 

Another arrest cited by the Beacon involved a man whom Utica police also charged with illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In such cases, according to the state police, seizing the firearm and inspecting the magazine would be legally justified.

So of these three arrests, two involved otherwise law-abiding people whose only crime was exceeding an arbitrary ammunition limit, while the other one involved someone who would have been arrested anyway but now faces an additional, relatively minor charge. Either way, it is hard to see any potential public safety benefit.

Advertisement

NEXT: Apple Releases Transparency Report of Government Data Requests

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who ever said it was about public safety?

    1. Exactamundo!

      Bow to Leviathan, or else…

    2. It’s for the children.

    3. Wouldn’t thus limiting the effectiveness of the arms governments are forbidden from allowing you to keep and bear count as some sort of, I don’t know, “infringement” on your right?

      1. forbidden from preventing… duh

  2. Those two extra bullets violate the boundary between order and anarchy!

    Incidentally, did you hear the one about the New York legislator who came home early and found his wife in bed with her lover?

    The legislator took out a gun and pointed it at his own head. His wife laughed at him.

    “Don’t laugh,” said the legislator, “you’re next!”

  3. Have any of our trolls attempted to defend this law? I forget.

    1. Of course. It’s for the CHILDRUNZ!

    2. The Usual Suspects

      The King of NYC, his unquestionable Highness…Micheal Bloomberg

      Mayors Against Illegal Guns (Bloomberg)

      Moms Demand Action (Bloomberg)

      Andrew Cumo

      Progs who couldn’t tell a barrel shroud from a muzzle break

      1. Or a muzzle *brake*, even.

        1. Actually the law bans “Muzzle Breaks”, but not “Muzzle brakes”. Look it up.

      2. There’s an organization called “Moms Demand Action”? I thought that was a website I can’t visit at work…

        1. Give it a couple of months until the NGO forgets to renew the website license.

  4. Too bad it seems none of them can use the proven “being David Gregory” defense in court.

  5. If you think cops follow–or often even know–their own written guidelines, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you, plus some really swell land in the Everglades.

    1. Pro tip: Brown Shugga just went to market. Got 2 cases at BevMo today.

      1. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll check the store today.

        1. If they’re out, it’s because of me. Same for Pliny the Elder.

        2. Also this month, Hairy Eyeball. Bombers and kegs only, though.

          1. I haven’t been able to get Hairy Eyeball for, like, years. This is awesome. And as for stuff being out, the lower Queen Anne Metropolitan usually has whatever Lagunitas is currently offering in stock. I’ll go there later.

      2. Lagunitas? Hell, yes!

        1. Lagunitas Sucks!

  6. Any actual criminals been caught and charged? Nope, just routine harassment, making mountains out of mole hills.

    1. pole vaulting over rat shit.

    2. And $200 fines for successful catches. That’s the real goal.

  7. OT: for some reason, I felt the urge to go over to Andrew Sullivan’s shitty blog. It didn’t take long to strike some gold.

    As for Virginia, Cuccinelli’s relatively strong showing suggests to me that the Tea Party is far from dead, and that the prospect of the poor getting health insurance still energizes them enormously. And tonight, I have to say, the respect I had for Ron Paul was obliterated by the following inflammatory rhetoric:

    Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification. I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification. It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states.

    That’s loaded Confederate rhetoric, and when combined with this statement ? “The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits. Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally” ? it crosses the line to promoting sedition. I’m done with him.

    Mmmm. Mmmm! Delicious.

    1. That sick fuck. He’s predicting that eventually the feds will be so overburdened that their laws will naturally go unenforced and ignored by common people! He’s not advocating anything, just making a guess as to what might happen. What a racist seditionist!!

    2. I had no idea TEAM BLUE was so patriotic. So let’s get this straight. Which ones are the nationalistic fascists again? Because I can’t seem to see the difference.

      1. Sully’s not TEAM BLUE, he’s a conservaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        Shit. I thought for sure I could make it through it this time.

        1. No, you got it perfectly. What the hell is the difference?

        2. The only thing I find more vexing than concern trolls themselves is how effective they are.

          I have absolutely no desire to sift through years and years of Andrew Sullivan columns but did he ever put out a mea culpa about his “Hugh Hewitt Award”?

          the Hugh Hewitt Award, introduced in June 2008 and named after a man Sullivan describes as an ‘absurd partisan fanatic’, is for the most egregious attempts to label 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.

          … particularly when it turned out the God-King really gets off on extraditing suspects to places like Somalia to be tortured, plus, you know, claiming the power to assassinate American citizens without due process?

          Also, hahahahahaha:

          the Matthew Yglesias Award is for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticise their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.

          1. So, it’s like, named ironically?

    3. When you’ve lost Andrew Sullivan….you’re doing something right.

      1. The weird thing is back when Maher kind of didn’t suck – Sullivan was one of better regular guests. I used to read him a lot pre-Obama and I swear I don’t recall him being unhinged like he is now.

    4. The Fugitive Slave Act was a Federal law. Would today’s progressives have bowed their heads and returned slaves to slavery because laws are laws?

      1. “It’s a law” only counts if the Supreme Court upheld it!

        1. And it’s not the Debt Ceiling Law. That one must be changed automatically.

    5. it crosses the line to promoting sedition.

      This stupid little accusation is becoming increasingly common among the hysterical prog set.

      Maybe the appropriate response to it when accused is to say, “If it is sedition, what the fuck are you going to do about it?”

      1. Sometimes sedition is more honorable than obeisance. Just depends on how bad the ruler/government your sediting or obeising from.

        1. “you’re” i mean…. keyboard not translating thoughts properly today

  8. “Unless there is probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not it contains more than 7 rounds….Absent some indication of criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe Act.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    OFFICER SAFETY trumps any piddly “presumption of innocence”; the cop gets to disarm the civilian, even if he has committed a meaningless traffic infraction. And, as long as you’ve got it, why not just remove the mag and count the rounds?

    “Well, well, well, what have we here?”

    1. ‘ello, ‘ello, ‘ello, what’s all this, then? A firearm? Well, that’s a bit of a sticky wicket, I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to come down wit’ me to the Re-Education Centre.

    2. Because officers are so much safer when you don’t have that 8th round?

  9. it seems safe to conclude that the seven-round rule is just as silly as it sounds.

    And the law is going to be repealed in 3…2…

    1. 2 1/2… 2 1/4… 2 1/8… 2 1/16…

    2. Repealed? More like “strengthened”. We will wonder how we ever let citizens run around packing *seven* rounds.

      1. No revolver needs more than 6 rounds, and no non-government employee needs anything more powerful than a revolver.

  10. hile the officers were justified in checking that Wojdan had a permit

    I think you forgot a “legally”.

  11. I’m surprised it’s not a 1-round magazine limit. Anymore, and you’re obviously treading into territory that the Founders could never have envisioned.

  12. “It’s a bit mysterious how the troopers knew the magazine contained more than seven rounds.”

    Well, they clearly had to check the magazine of his pistol for further evidence of his tail light being out.

  13. punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine.

    How is anything that carries a $200 fine also punishable by six months in jail?

    Six months in jail to your average law-abiding citizen would be a devastating, life-altering experience… what the fuck is the meaning of a $200 fine?

    1. Yep. Exactly.

      “WTF?”

      “Because….FYTW!”

      It’s always, “Because, Fuck You! That’s Why!”

    2. Six months in jail to your average law-abiding citizen would be a devastating, life-altering experience… what the fuck is the meaning of a $200 fine?

      Well, if you ONLY get the $200 fine, you are probably oing to pay it with glee seeing as the alternative was some jail time too…

      Or at least that’s what they are counting on.

      1. punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine.

        Taking the article at face value (I haven’t read the law), it’s punishable with six months in jail AND a $200 fine, not Six months in jail OR a $200 fine. The latter would be slightly more understandable. This says AND. Meaning your average automated red-light ticket is worth six months in jail. Schfuck me.

    3. Legislators love to put in jail time as a last resort. They’ll claim it would theoretically be to punish a serial repeat offender who just will not get the message, but really what it is is the ability to fuck someone for even such a minor offence if a prosecutor or judge wants to.

      I bet if we looked at some really minor, minor misdemeanors, we’d be surprised at what their range of potential, though usually not used, punishment is.

      1. I bet if we looked at some really minor, minor misdemeanors, we’d be surprised at what their range of potential, though usually not used, punishment is.

        Where I live, Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors carry “up to” 12 month sentences. Class 3 and 4 only carry fines. Guess which class simple possession of a particular weed falls in? 2.

    4. Icing on the cake.

    5. Yeah, that jumped out at me too.

  14. It’s a bit mysterious how the troopers knew the magazine contained more than seven rounds.

    Not really. Their round-sniffing dog alerted.

    1. You joke. This is coming. “The dogs are very carefully calibrated and therefore quite reliable.”

    2. So we’re carrying magazines in our asses now?

  15. I wish some Red State would start licensing stand up comedians and forcing them to limit their content to the 7 dirty words…Can you imagine the backlash from Team Blue if a comic had to hand over his material for inspection to some Jackson, Mississippi vice cop?

    1. “I hope you never get your blah blahed again!”

    2. Actual magazines, the printed paper kind, should be limited to seven pages. It wouldn’t violate the first ammendment: George Washington could never have envisioned “Cosmopolitan”.

      1. Right on, Tim!

        And they should be held together by a non-detachable clip.

        1. Non-detachable “MAGAZINE”, Rich.

          We don’t use the word “clip” round these parts.

          “Nice little non-detachable magazine ya got on that 7-page magazine…be a shame, etc. etc.”

          1. It’s magazines all the way down!

      2. Wait, what will we do with all the employees you’d have to layoff by reducing down to just 7 pages…THINK OF THE WORKING MAN!

        1. Publishers will be “asked” to maintain their current employees at their current salaries.

        2. Instead of once a month they can publish once a day. Stimulus!

          1. How about once every 12 hours? How about a $1,000,000,000,000 minimum hourly wage?

      3. We must limit your magazine to 7 pages. Also, we must ban online content, or “assault reading” as we like to call it.

        1. Why does anyone *need* a browser that loads a page with each click of a mouse?

          1. Why do you *need* all of these tabs opened simultaneously?

            1. Why do *you* need infinite scrolling?

              1. Yeah, put that story on 5 separate pages, and all links to HR 24/7

    3. It’s interesting how many imaginary SoCon scenarios people have to come up with as opposed to all-too-real SoLib scenarios.

      By all means check out a honky-tonk in Mississippi and count the dirty words.

      1. Meh. I don’t know about Jackson, Mississippi now, but Corinth, Mississippi in the 1970s, too much beer and rowdiness would get your ass whooped by Buford Pusser.

        1. Um, how much is too much?

          1. Just about any, if you believe the stories. Pusser didn’t want any vice along the Tennessee-Mississippi state line.

            1. Hmmm…

  16. 2 year old learns not to call 911 for help.

    http://www.nbc4i.com/story/238…..-marijuana

    1. Members of the Sheriff’s Interdiction Unit responded to the scene to assist with the investigation. Investigators spoke with the child’s mother and father, who admitted to growing and occasionally selling marijuana.

      Uhh, don’t talk to the cops?

      “Jesus, how did THAT get there? Some sick fuck must have broken in and planted drugs ALL OVER THE HOUSE!”

      1. What the fuck?!

        Nope, we’re fine here. My 2 year old accidentally dialed 911. I’ve told him its wrong. Bye now.

        1. *cop shaking Brett L awake*

          *Brett L wakes to see cop standing over him*

          cop: Sir, we got a call that your 2-yr-old couldn’t wake you up… your eyes seem dilated a bit… are you ok, do you mind if we look around? What’s that plant over there?

          1. It would of worked too until Brett L started mentioning that reactor leak and then blasted the phone.

    2. Oh for fuck’s sake. First comment, “I hope they sent someone out to check on this kid. I’ll bet the parents whipped or beat it for this.”

      Die in a fucking fire.

    3. The comments there are just….we are doomed.

  17. And they should be held together by a non-detachable clip.

    Nobody needs a staple capable of holding more than seven pages.

    1. Or a stapler capable of holding more than seven staples.

      “Planning on doing a *lot* of stapling, are we?”

      1. Do you have a permit for that stapler?

        1. The cashier said she stapled it to the receipt!

          The bitch set me up!

    2. If you’re newsletter is over 7 pages, you’re straying into “journalist” territory, and we’re not prepared to grant you 1st Amendment freedom of the press privileges just yet.

      1. “your” newsletter…. i should just quit typing now

  18. What are people that own antique Enfields in New York supposed to do with their 70 year old scary bolt action rifles? Sell them? Modify them and destroy a tiny bit of history in the process?

  19. “Silly” is way the wrong word. Silly makes it sound trivial and not seriously impactful. It is silly only in the way that drug laws are silly.

    1. Paging “The Ministry of Silly Walks”.

      Seriously, I agree.

    2. Good point. The correct word is ‘illegal’.

  20. If a cop will blow your brains out for brandishing a pen, just imagine what sort of response that staple gun will elicit.

    1. A $200 fine and six months in jail, apparently.

      I mean, I’ll do the six months standing on my head. But $200? You go too far, sir!

      1. “And you are forbidden further contact with staples, including bread and milk.”

        *** strikes desk with gavel ***

  21. Three Arrests Illustrate the Impact of New York’s Silly Seven-Round Ammunition Limit

    Why is it silly? Can’t you see that study after study? have shown that people only need 7 bullets for self defense and that more than that can only be for the purpose of starting a massacre of children and puppies?

  22. I get the part about how you don’t like the law. I get the part about unwarranted searches. Not seeing the silly part.

  23. Sound like some serious business dude.

    http://www.PrivacyRoad.tk

  24. The article does a poor job addressing the issues it raises.

    “If these arrests are typical, it seems safe to conclude that the seven-round rule is just as silly as it sounds.”

    Are they typical? I don’t know. The 7 bullet rule is just one part of the law and it is difficult to tell. What does it help to draw conclusions based on a premise you have very little data on?

    http://www.uticaod.com/news/x8…..peed-chase
    The third person, Patterson, probably wasn’t typical. He was on parole, had a 9 mm he wasn’t allowed to possess, was involved in a high speed chase on a motorcycle without helmets for him or his rider. I would say police had plenty of probable cause to examine his gun.

    I am not sure, but I think the other two consented to the examination of their legally possessed guns because they didn’t know their rights. Probably the best thing to do is obey the law and keep 7 bullets in the gun, resist allowing the police to inspect it as much as you can without getting arrested and then raise a stink when they take the gun without your consent and without probable cause.

    It should also be noted that for the first offense the only penalty is the $200 fine. The six months in jail option comes after the second offense. This raises the question as to why people are being arrested for a misdemeanor with just a $200 dollar fine. Maybe it has to do with the class of the misdemeanor.

  25. As far as public safety goes I am guessing the rationale for 7 bullets is that it might decrease the number of people shot in a mass shooting or a “spray and prey” by at least one person. Of course with some practice swapping out magazines can happen pretty fast and then there is always the high probability that someone intent on shooting a lot of people isn’t going to sweat a misdemeanor charge for possession of a high capacity magazine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.