Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

Congratulations. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read on this site. Is, by chance, the Marine white? If so, I am sure that is 'coloring' your opinion on your comparison between him and the admirable citizen Plaxico Burress.

 

criminal intent has no business here, that is like shooting someone without the intent of killing them but if they die that person shouldn't be charged with murder

plaxico may have allegedly intended to break the law but they both broke the law and now they have to do the time

 

If intent to kill cannot be established, you cannot convict someone of murder. Murder requires malice aforethought, malice aforethought requires intent. In most situations if someone accidentally discharged a weapon and shot someone dead, that person shouldn't (and wouldn't) be charged with murder.

 

no someone shot someone in the leg because they did not like them and did not intend to kill them but they hit the femoral artery and the person bled out and died

a jury would convict that person of murder with good prosecution, criminal intent should not ease the punishment here that is why there is a mandatory sentence some crimes are too heinous according to the jurisdiction to have a loophole as is the case with illegal possession in new york

 

The person in your example legally had intent to kill and could be charged with murder. The deadly weapons rule applies. When you point a gun at someone and shoot the law assumes you intended to kill someone. Even if you cross your heart afterwards and swear on a Bible you really only meant to wound them.

This would be different from an accidental discharge of a weapon where someone was killed. The person in the second example may never have demonstrated the intent to apply a deadly weapon to another person and it may not be possible to establish intent to kill. Murder would not apply in the second example.

 

that is what happened here the law assumed anyone with an illegal possession is out to do ill so they impose a mandatory 3 year state prison sentence

people cannot claim ignorance on their intent to murder when they point and shoot at someone the same way as when they illegally possess a firearm in this state

this is a serious crime in new york and is treated the same as pointed a gun at someone

 

... you're so disconnected from reality and the English language here I don't know how to even respond.

 

I don't think the guy deserves jail time. He is just ignorant about carry laws, which is not an excuse. He is certainly not above the law, unfortunately for him. May the prosecutors have mercy.

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps

 

:shrugs: why can't the deadly weapons rule apply to illegal possession as it does to shooting someone?

the state of new york sees it in the same light that is why there is a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence for illegal weapons possession as they feel the intent to commit a murder is a reasonable assumption when illegally possessing a firearm

 

Because that rule doesn't mention illegal possession?

You know this? You speak for the state of New York as to why this law exists?

 

what other reasonable justification is there for a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence if the state of New York did not think people who illegally possess are intending on committing a murder or other violent crime with the weapon?

 

None,..... Absolutely None....

 

Not sure I agree what you guessed is reasonable justification. But as for alternate theories one could speculate it's to discourage the accidental or reckless discharge of fire arms in one of the worlds most populated cities. Either could result in injury or death, as Plaxico demonstrated.

In any event, neither my lack of knowledge as to the reasoning nor your lack of imagination as to alternate theories in no way proves a link between a law against carries and a rule that doesn't mention them.

 

You and the others that have said this are right it is the law. But what about justice? What about right and wrong? What about the intent of the law which is to protect people, not punish some one who asks to turn in his weapon because he is trying to do the right thing. I would hope that people would want a Just system.

 

Then they should change the law.

 

they should, i am glad I live in Kansas not New York

 

Aren't we all... ever smell New York in July? Horrible city.

 

it is no theory they are not preventing the accidental discharge of fire arms they have alot of gun crimes in New York so they assume anyone carrying illegally is out to murder or armed robbery

 

Ayuh,... That alone is purely Theory....

 

The law neither completely prevents accidental discharge in public places nor does it completely prevent murder or armed robbery -- all three have occurred in New York last year.

If you have knowledge of what the law assumes with regard to a person carrying an unregistered concealed weapon, please provide your source. Otherwise, please stop holding up guesses as fact.

 

While it certainly appears he had the intention of complying with the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I hope the prosecutors look at the case objectively, his attempt to comply and his service to our country.

But along with rights come responsibility. And a person carrying a weapon is responsible for making sure they are in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction they are in.

I say that as a very pro-second amendment and Concealed Handgun License holder who thinks more people should carry.

 

Here's the difference. A gun can be aimed at an aggressor and the holder of the gun can be reasonably certain that the target is not an innocent person or that an innocent person will not be in the path of the bullet. There is some risk of danger to others, but there's always risk. The vest, on the other hand, is an instrument of uncontrollable destruction. When used, it will not only harm or kill the aggressors, but it is also guaranteed to harm or kill any innocent people nearby as well as cause significant property damage.

The bearer of a gun is of no threat to others unless he wields the gun in a fashion that makes it a threat or indicates that he will use it in a way that threatens innocent people. The wearer of a suicide vest, by the act of wearing the vest and indicating that he might use it for any reason at all, threatens everyone around him.

Unfortunately, grasping these distinctions are difficult for those who rely on politicians and bureaucrats to tell them what is right and wrong. Logic and reason has gone out the window and has been replaced by legislation and the hammer of government rule.

 

Reckless to his person and possibly others, but I don't see where he acted with malice and therefore criminal intent. Willful violation of statute isn't criminal intent, it's civil disobedience.

 

Why isn't ignorance of the law an excuse? We hear this platitude all the time, usually first from someone who is employed by the government such as a police officer or teacher. Yet, have you ever really given any thought to that statement? Why is it not an excuse to be disobedient to a rule you've never known about? The fact that someone is to be punished for disobedience to a rule that he was unfamiliar with and which does not serve to protect anyone shows that the statute under which he is to be punished does not serve the people.

His ignorance of the rule is a perfectly valid excuse.

 

It's a practicality. If ignorance excused criminal behaviour, any criminal might escape any crime by claiming ignorance. It's hard to prove what a man knows and harder still to prove what he doesn't know.