SAFE act claims law abiding...er...law breaking, citizen...

[billc]

This poor guy had 9 bullets in his pistol...uh oh, you are only allowed to have 7 bullets...so now they are going to crucify this citizen who used to be law abiding, would have been law abiding about 3 months ago before this stupid law was passed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/13/New-York-Man-Arrested-For-Violating-New-Gun-Laws

[h=2]Gregory D. Jean of New York was pulled over Sunday evening because the lamp over his license plate was not working. He ended up arrested for violating the new NY SAFE Act.
[/h] The troopers saw Jean's .40 caliber pistol in the front seat and asked to inspect it. The weapon is legally registered and possessed, but it contained nine bullets instead of the new legal amount of seven.
Jean is charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices and third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation, both misdemeanors, plus vehicle infractions. He was released without bail.

This isn't about stopping criminals...it is about intimidating law abiding citizens...making them second guess their desire to protect themselves with a firearm. 2 bullets have now turned this guys life upside down, and he may not have known those 2 extra bullets were in the gun...

Let's say he was a felon...he would already be breaking the law by having the gun in his possession, and he could have been arrested for that, no need for the stupid "bullet trap," for law abiding citizens.

 

[Carol]

I do not support the SAFE act, but it looks like this guy willingly brought quite a bit of attention upon himself by driving around with his plate light out, a suspended license, and the sidearm loose in the passenger seat half covered by a sweatshirt.

Not so bright, son...

 

[jks9199]

Just a guess -- but he either got on the radar another way, or had an ulterior purpose and wanted to get stopped. We'll know as the case proceeds to trial.

I don't agree with the SAFE Act; it won't do what they claim it does and represents an unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional infringement -- and won't make anyone safer, but stunts aren't the way to fight it, either.

 

[arnisador]

Twould have been law abiding about 3 months ago before this stupid law was passed.

Sounds like a valid defense to me, but IANAL.

 

[Drasken]

Heck, in Texas he would be in violation due to the gun not being concealed in the vehicle. My opinion is that it is a stupid charge on the gun. But my question is why did he have his gun in plain view on the seat? Did he expect to use it?
Also, as the law is well known now. Why would you have a gun in plain view and violate a law that is in place? If it were concealed, fine I can see that. If it were in his home, I could see that one as well.

One of these things I could see, but put the puzzle together and the picture seems kinda fishy. It really does seem like he wanted to get caught with it.