[Revelyell]

Could a warrant be granted to search and arrest someone for a violation?

suppose "they" go through all the forums, find all the people who say "will not comply" find out their real name, cross reference with pistol permit data, see that they own auto loaders that accept 10rd mags.

could they use this info to assume that these people have 10rd mags and probably have 10rds loades in their homes, get a search warrant, raid, issue citation and revoke permit?

 

[guygus3516]

all depends on the judge I guess

 

[Enigma]

A violation can only be enforced if the officer sees the violation with his own eyes. Your testimony, or that of others, is insufficient for a violation charge. As an example, I could not go to a Police station and claim I saw you doing 70mph in a 55, and expect the officer to give you a summons for it - even if you admitted to it. Same goes for littering and other violations.

 

[Revelyell]

A violation can only be enforced if the officer sees the violation with his own eyes. Your testimony, or that of others, is insufficient for a violation charge. As an example, I could not go to a Police station and claim I saw you doing 70mph in a 55, and expect the officer to give you a summons for it - even if you admitted to it. Same goes for littering and other violations.

Ok, I understand that...but if someone says "I will not comply" and a cop reads it, wouldn't that be reasonable to believe hat they are currently breaking the law?
If someone had drugs in their house, went outside and told a cop "I have drugs in my house" could the cop get a warrant?

 

[pontiacmrc1]

A violation can only be enforced if the officer sees the violation with his own eyes. Your testimony, or that of others, is insufficient for a violation charge. As an example, I could not go to a Police station and claim I saw you doing 70mph in a 55, and expect the officer to give you a summons for it - even if you admitted to it. Same goes for littering and other violations.

However, they can give you a DWI if you're not even driving and your keys are in your pocket, if you admit you drank and drove...

 

[Enigma]

However, they can give you a DWI if you're not even driving and your keys are in your pocket, if you admit you drank and drove...

A DWI is not a violation, it's a crime (Misdemeanor or Felony). The rules are different for crimes.

 

[pontiacmrc1]

Ok, I understand that...but if someone says "I will not comply" and a cop reads it, wouldn't that be reasonable to believe hat they are currently breaking the law?
If someone had drugs in their house, went outside and told a cop "I have drugs in my house" could the cop get a warrant?

Is that kinda like a person calling the cops 'cause they gave someone $20 for drugs, and the dealer kept the money but didn't supply the drugs?

 

[Enigma]

Ok, I understand that...but if someone says "I will not comply" and a cop reads it, wouldn't that be reasonable to believe hat they are currently breaking the law?
If someone had drugs in their house, went outside and told a cop "I have drugs in my house" could the cop get a warrant?

I think the cop would have a very hard time getting a warrant from any judge for a violation. He would want to get a statement from you saying that the law breaking was of a criminal level. IE: A judge is not going to issue a warrant if you say you have one joint in the privacy of your house (violation), but if you said you had 15lbs of heroin that warrant would likely be issued (Felony).

I'm not an expert in this stuff, and we've all seen law enforced improperly, so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

 

[LZ1]

I thought the law was you could have 10rds loaded IN YOUR HOME and AT THE RANGE anyways

 

[Morts]

I honestly don't think too many judges will be wasting their time granting warrants to check gun magazines. I have drugs in my house, I take medication every day prescribed by a Doctor, which is a drug. So if I went outside and told the cop I had drugs in my house I am not lying, am I ? You could also say on the internet you are not going to comply and actually comply with the law. There is a lot of interpretation problems here people say a lot of things they do not mean.

 

[ats64mod]

News like this would spread like WILDFIRE and, I suspect, the backlash would be so great that it wouldn't be worth the political risk of doing so. Additionally, they'd get away with it once or twice before someone would eventually get hurt (not all gun owners are willing to be searched without what they believe to be probable cause).

These actions would start us down a very slippery slope...

 

[Cityhunter346]

I don't see why not. They're willing to take a strangers word on a supposed gun violation and potentially pay them $500 for the information.

 

[scottyb]

i thought the law was you could have 10rds loaded in your home and at the range anyways

Nope, not by the (Un)SAFE act.

s 265.37 unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices. It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than seven but less than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition. If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is possessed within the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a violation and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars, and for a second offense, be guilty of a class b misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a term of up to three months imprisonment.

 

[Shooter]

I think the cop would have a very hard time getting a warrant from any judge for a violation. He would want to get a statement from you saying that the law breaking was of a criminal level. IE: A judge is not going to issue a warrant if you say you have one joint in the privacy of your house (violation), but if you said you had 15lbs of heroin that warrant would likely be issued (Felony).

I'm not an expert in this stuff, and we've all seen law enforced improperly, so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Enigma good posts! I agree. No gents they won't get warrants because you have guns that could hold more than ten rounds, and probably not for mere posts on NYF, probably. Some people have said some very stupid things on here however. Word of advice, do not post on a public website that you intend to break any law, whether you think it is constitutional or not. The simple reason is why give them a reason to want to come after you in the first place? Civil disobedience doesn't mean you want to make yourself a target. It means everyone stands together in defiance quietly and they have no one to prosecute. Then we come to the immediate aid of people charged with Safe Act violations. Fight them smartly!

 

[phritz]

Just in case- my mags are loaded with 7 rounds only, any dangerous hi-caps have been destroyed, anything considered an AW has been sold out of state, and any ammo, other than the 7 in the mag has been legally disposed of. Everything here is in complete compliance with all applicable laws. All remaining firearms are stored in a safe, in a locked closet, with double trigger locks on each gun. Absolutely nothing to see here.
Hail Cuomo, praise Bloomberg, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[Robin]

Sad, sad indeed that this is even being discussed, not that I don't understand why it is being discussed, its just sad, maybe because I'm old enough to remember when a serious discussion of this nature would have been considered nutty, not so today. I wouldn't be surprised if cumo's aides, payed by us, monitor sites like this and give little andy a briefing about them weekly as he sits there like Kim Jong Un, gleefully enjoying the misery he has spread upon the land.
Robin

 

[Mark NY]

I don't see the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine law sticking anyways. It would be too easy to forget to remove 3 rounds. Do we really want to arrest people on felonies for honest mistakes? I have faith the courts will see this as it is. The Safe Act does not deal with criminals it creates them.

 

[Robin]

Mark, i have a bridge for sale, only used by liberals to go to and from Manhattan, yours, cheap!
Robin

 

[Bob11]

Anyone feel safer yet?! I know I sure do!

 

[CrisisBill]

I guess anything is possible, it would depend on how liberal the judge is. Some of these wack jobs can twist anything to meet their twisted thinking, there lies the danger in the appointment of too many liberal judges at the same time; we will have no balance, just twisted perception to fit their end game.