First person charged under NY SAFE Act

[Sam1]

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/crime/wnyer-first-to-be-charged-under-gun-law

 

Prosecutors say 32-year-old Benjamin Wassell sold illegal assault and semi-automatic assault weapons to an undercover state police investigator. The state Attorney General's office says the second sale happened in February, after passage of the NY SAFE Act.

Wassell allegedly first sold an illegal DelTon DTI-15 assault rifle to an undercover officer in January. Investigators say because the rifle was outfitted with additional features including a pistol grip, a telescoping butt stock, and a bayonet mount, it is classified as an illegal assault weapon under the penal law. For that alleged sale, Wassell is charged with felony criminal sale of an illegal weapon.

In the second alleged sale, investigators say Wassell sold an undercover officer an Armalite AR-10 Magnum Semiautomatic Rifle in February, in violation of the then recently passed NY SAFE Act, which made illegal the transfer, sale, exchange and disposal of an assault weapon to a person unauthorized to possess such a weapon. Wassell is facing a misdemeanor for the alleged violation of the NY SAFE Act.

Wassell was arraigned Thursday and is due back in court next week.

 

 

Undercover sting and set him up with a felony.  I'm glad that NY is so safe and no murders or rapes are happening so they can enforce a bullshit gun ban.

[TripleDigitRide]

My bad, I missed that part.

Edited March 15, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[Mike.357]

were the police he sold to ineligible to own firearms?

[DaveTN]

were the police he sold to ineligible to own firearms?

They have a recording of an uncover Officer telling him he is a convicted felon. This clown would have been charged in this state.

[Guest Gunbunnie]

I thought the Safe Act was put on hold till New York proved the law was Constituntional. I understand about the 1st rifle and I understand about the Felon statement, but not falling under the Safe Act.

[glock55]

This is all about putting the fear of god in the gun owners of New York.

[Oh Shoot]

I thought the Safe Act was put on hold till New York proved the law was Constituntional. I understand about the 1st rifle and I understand about the Felon statement, but not falling under the Safe Act.

 

Yep. That may be an out, too. But as you say, it's only for the second lesser charge -- I'm also surprised violation of SAFE is only a 'meanor there.

 

- OS

Edited March 15, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Sam1]

Yep. That may be an out, too. But as you say, it's only for the second lesser charge -- I'm also surprised violation of SAFE is only a 'meanor there.

 

- OS

 

Article said there was a felony for the sale and misdemeanor for the gun itself

Edited March 16, 2013 by Sam1

[Oh Shoot]

Article said there was a felony for the sale and misdemeanor for the gun itself

 

Read again.

 

The first sale is the felony, was done under already existing law before SAFE was passed. Because rifle had features already illegal.

 

The second sale was the misdemeanor under the newly enacted SAFE, rifle must not have had illegal features pursuant to the other law.

 

- OS

Edited March 16, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Sam1]

Ah ok, too many damn laws then, gets cornfusing.  Next week the poor guy will probably get charged with more felonies for making the court do paperwork on filing misdemeanor charges.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Cuomo will end up with a few eggs in his face.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Cuomo will end up with a few eggs in his face.

[TN-popo]

They have a recording of an uncover Officer telling him he is a convicted felon. This clown would have been charged in this state.

 

Link?  I'm not seeing that bit of info after a quick search. 

Thanks

[Mike.357]

if someone for whatever reason tells me they are not allowed to legally own a firearm, but it turns out they are lying and can own firearms am I still breaking the law?

[Currently]

Police are allowed to lie to prove intent among other issues.

[TN-popo]

Police are allowed to lie to prove intent among other issues.

 

EDIT:  Misunderstood "Currently."

Edited March 16, 2013 by TN-popo

[Currently]

Yes it does.

" The short answer is: police in almost all circumstances are allowed to say whatever they want to get you to incriminate yourself." /Internet quote FWIW ...

And I do state for the record that I am pro-LE and respect the job they do.

I am against bad laws and the political and legal consequences that are incurred when they are enforced selectively to prove an agenda that has no basis on logic or reason.

I read history to learn the lessons taught.

What I have learned is when a bad law is implemented, evil fills the vacuum that is left behind.

Much of our current societal ills today are a direct result of bad laws and legislation enacted and enforced.

That, my LE colleague, is not humor ... rather it is abject horror that the obvious is ignored and the agendas are implemented. Edited March 16, 2013 by Currently

[Patton]

if someone for whatever reason tells me they are not allowed to legally own a firearm, but it turns out they are lying and can own firearms am I still breaking the law?

Not in any state I know of. It's like me saying I'm under 21 and I'm going to buy beer even though I am 30.

[TMF]

Enticing people to break the law is lazy police work.  It does nothing to curb real crime which involve real victims, it just makes folks feel good that they're putting a person in jail who broke the law, while ignoring the fact that they wouldn't have broke the law without the encouragement and enticement of the LEO that arrested them.

 

The FBI has had a few "home grown terrorist" plots they've "foiled" over the years, but when you hear the facts of the case it is just a person who talked a lot of smack on the internet about jihad, then was approached by an asset, taught how to make bombs by said asset, then provided bomb materials by that asset.  What have they prevented?  There are real active threats out there they need to focus on, not entraping folks then patting themselves on the back for saving the day and averting a disaster which would have never taken place anyhow.  Doesn't make sense to me

Edited March 16, 2013 by TMF

[Currently]

Ah, you are forgetting the most important item!

It is the MONEY, it is justifying the budget to fund the agency.

They have a full license to lie to the American people through the press and what ever means possible.

Follow the money trail.

The police are used as pawns in their quest for justification. They are following orders.

Read about all the major news stories where these agencies got their hands caught in the cookie jar. Do you see any evidence that the people who ordered the event ever got prosecuted?

[DaveTN]

if someone for whatever reason tells me they are not allowed to legally own a firearm, but it turns out they are lying and can own firearms am I still breaking the law?

No, not unless that person is an undercover cop that puts you in handcuffs.

 

Our state only has three simple requirements that you must meet to legally sell a firearm.

1. It is your responsibility to make sure the buyer is a resident of this state.

2. It is your responsibility to make sure the buyer is of age for whatever you are selling.

3. It is your responsibility to make sure you are not selling to someone that you know is banned from ownership.

 

You can be arrested and charged with anything. If a Police Officer takes the stand and testifies he was working illegal gun sales, he told you he was a convicted felon and you sold to him anyway; the jury would have to decide based on that and any audio recordings, if you intended to sell to a convicted felon.

 

If someone is either telling you, or alluding to the fact that they can’t own a gun; they are either a felon or a cop….. Probably a cop.

[Oh Shoot]

No, not unless that person is an undercover cop that puts you in handcuffs.

 

Our state only has three simple requirements that you must meet to legally sell a firearm.

1. It is your responsibility to make sure the buyer is a resident of this state.

2. It is your responsibility to make sure the buyer is of age for whatever you are selling.

3. It is your responsibility to make sure you are not selling to someone that you know is banned from ownership.

 

The "make sure" part of the 1 and 2 are probably correct if push comes to shove (and in TN 18 years old is old enough for long gun or handgun, and easily verified by a TDL) but in 3, since you can't "make sure" of that, I believe the test would only be that you had "no reason to believe" the buyer was a prohibited person.

 

All probably moot before long anyway.

 

Which brings up one more quirk assuming we get the "universal" background check thing: right now I can sell a handgun to an 18 year old in personal sale, but if I have to do it via a 4473 being run, will that change to his having to be 21?

 

- OS

Edited March 16, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

The "make sure" part of the 1 and 2 are probably correct if push comes to shove (and in TN 18 years old is old enough for long gun or handgun, and easily verified by a TDL) but in 3, since you can't "make sure" of that, I believe the test would only be that you had "no reason to believe" the buyer was a prohibited person.

 

You are correct on what the test would be. If there are witnesses or audio recordings, and a person told you they are a convicted felon; a Judge or Jury will probably convict you.

 

Which brings up one more quirk assuming we get the "universal" background check thing: right now I can sell a handgun to an 18 year old in personal sale, but if I have to do it via a 4473 being run, will that change to his having to be 21?

 

If that happens you will be doing it under Federal law. An FFL can’t sell an 18 YO a handgun, so I doubt they will lower the age.

It will depend on whether or not Tennessee (and all other states) decides to comply.

[Spiffy]

Honestly do convicted felons who know they can't buy a firearm actually tell people they are felons when trying to buy a gun? If I was a felon and wanted to buy a gun and some one asked me if I could legally possess it I'd LIE MY ASS OFF! and tell them NO I'm not restricted.

 

It's like the guy at the "meeting" who wants to blow shit up, you know they are a government agent.

[Oh Shoot]

If that happens you will be doing it under Federal law. An FFL can’t sell an 18 YO a handgun, so I doubt they will lower the age.

 

Depends maybe on how it plays out. The FFL isn't selling the firearm, after all, but rather running a background check.

 

There might me some other system enacted, where a background check is actually a separate instrument from the 4473 or something for resells, who knows.

 

- OS