NYC-Armed citizen kills would be robber in self defense but may face charges

[press1280]

OUTRAGEOUS: 65-Year-Old New York City Man Arrested After Gunning Down Mentally Ill Robber in Self-Defense - Murder Charges On The Table Even as Mugger's Family Defends Old Man's Actions (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

A 65-year-old man who gunned down an armed thug in self-defense has been inexplicably charged by radical prosecutors.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Perp had a lengthy rap sheet. The news report says the shooter/victim faces weapons charges, although the neighbors in the building say they believe he had a NYC "firearms permit". I'm guessing he had a premises permit, but not a full carry permit? And at this point, I wonder how hard it is for someone with said permit to get it upgraded to full carry since the city can't use "good cause" for denial anymore?

 

[Allen65]

OUTRAGEOUS: 65-Year-Old New York City Man Arrested After Gunning Down Mentally Ill Robber in Self-Defense - Murder Charges On The Table Even as Mugger's Family Defends Old Man's Actions (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

A 65-year-old man who gunned down an armed thug in self-defense has been inexplicably charged by radical prosecutors.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Perp had a lengthy rap sheet. The news report says the shooter/victim faces weapons charges, although the neighbors in the building say they believe he had a NYC "firearms permit". I'm guessing he had a premises permit, but not a full carry permit? And at this point, I wonder how hard it is for someone with said permit to get it upgraded to full carry since the city can't use "good cause" for denial anymore?

Maybe this might make a good case for SCOTUS to use to throw out most permitting schemes, if states like NY keep abusing them like this.

 

[6-Pack]

Please tell me he had a pending CCW application. If so, that’s SCOTUS worthy.

 

[Inigoes]

Please tell me he had a pending CCW application. If so, that’s SCOTUS worthy.

It's SCOTUS worthy without a carry permit application.

This justifies why we should not have to seek permission from the government to exercise a fundamental right.

 

[308Scout]

The plot thickens a bit. It looks like most of the charges may not be related to the SD shooting itself, but to "unlicensed" guns that the guy was carrying and had in his apartment.

Queens man who fatally shot mugger hit with illegal weapons charges; huge gun stash found

The Queens man who fatally shot an ex-con trying to rob him near his home was hit Thursday with illegal weapons charges after a massive weapons stash was found at this home, though he dodged a homi…

www.nydailynews.com

 

[jc1240]

The plot thickens a bit. It looks like most of the charges may not be related to the SD shooting itself, but to "unlicensed" guns that the guy was carrying and had in his apartment.

Queens man who fatally shot mugger hit with illegal weapons charges; huge gun stash found

The Queens man who fatally shot an ex-con trying to rob him near his home was hit Thursday with illegal weapons charges after a massive weapons stash was found at this home, though he dodged a homi…

www.nydailynews.com

Doesn't matter in my book. See post right above yours.

 

[Inigoes]

Doesn't matter in my book. See post right above yours.

The post-Bruen NYC smack down would be epic!

 

[lazarus]

The post-Bruen NYC smack down would be epic!

Could be. Right now, SCOTUS hasn't ruled that AWBs or mandatory registration are unconstitutional. Or that permit for possession is unconstitutional. And they said in Bruen that carry permits, shall issue, are presumed constitutional. So he is going to need to fight a whole slew of different aspects of gun laws. He sure has a heck of a lot better chance post-Bruen.

But this is NY. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Odds are high he is going to be spending a lot of time in jail or even prison before maybe, maybe, SCOTUS might invalidate everything he is going to be charged with.

 

[ezracer]

Welcome to the "NEW" America. Where good is bad, bad is good, right is left, left is right, up is down, down is up, men are women, women are men.

My summation. The country is a fvcking freak show on steroids.

 

[Inigoes]

Could be. Right now, SCOTUS hasn't ruled that AWBs or mandatory registration are unconstitutional. Or that permit for possession is unconstitutional. And they said in Bruen that carry permits, shall issue, are presumed constitutional. So he is going to need to fight a whole slew of different aspects of gun laws. He sure has a heck of a lot better chance post-Bruen.

But this is NY. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Odds are high he is going to be spending a lot of time in jail or even prison before maybe, maybe, SCOTUS might invalidate everything he is going to be charged with.

All of that is true, what is missing is the NYC thumbing their nose to the Bruen ruling.

This would be the case to tell NYC, if they [NYC] can't follow the highest court of the land's ruling, then the highest court might take away their [NYC's] power to regulate a constitutional right (aka permitting).

 

[Bob A]

All of that is true, what is missing is the NYC thumbing their nose to the Bruen ruling.

This would be the case to tell NYC, if they [NYC] can't follow the highest court of the land's ruling, then the highest court might take away their [NYC's] power to regulate a constitutional right (aka permitting).

And registration. And mag limits. And lists of verboten guns.

If you have a carry permit in NY, your permit has a list, by make and serial #, of the guns you're allowed to carry. That's ridiculous. (IIRC, DC has a similar thing).

 

[lazarus]

And registration. And mag limits. And lists of verboten guns.

If you have a carry permit in NY, your permit has a list, by make and serial #, of the guns you're allowed to carry. That's ridiculous. (IIRC, DC has a similar thing).

Except most of that, and what he is being charged under, isn’t thumbing their nose at SCOTUS. None of it is new ordinances or laws he is being charged under and none of those ordinances or laws have been litigated under the new Bruen standards and are not otherwise related to the opinion in Bruen. It looks like almost all (all?) of the charges he is facing are violations of NY SAFE act on possession of the “assault” weapons (8 counts), 13 counts for unregistered handguns (no idea what law that is, but NY has had it for decades). I am not sure what the other 4 charges are. Might be related to assault weapons that cannot be possessed, or related to only having a premise permit and not a carry permit (one charge is for carrying an unregistered handgun).

NY’s new sensitive places laws is absolutely thumbing their nose at SCOTUS over Bruen, but he isn’t being charged under any of that at all. Maybe he could make an argument he couldn’t get a carry permit because of something NY hasn’t done away with. But all those “illegal” guns and guns that should have been registered are existing laws on the books years before Bruen.

I expect many of them WILL fall. But no states are proactive at removing laws that MIGHT be unconstitutional based on SCOTUS opinions. They do sometimes remove laws and generally stop enforcement of laws directly tied to an opinion. But a change in review standards? Never heard of a state dropping a law or stopping enforcement over laws that MIGHT now be considered unconstitutional because a standard of review was changed. It takes lawsuits or criminal cases to get those changes.

 

[TI-tick]

And registration. And mag limits. And lists of verboten guns.

If you have a carry permit in NY, your permit has a list, by make and serial #, of the guns you're allowed to carry. That's ridiculous. (IIRC, DC has a similar thing).

CA has the same:
Up to 3 ID'd by make, caliber, and SN.
Need to qualify with each.

Ridiculous is right.
I can carry my S&W 360 that's on my CCW but not my S&W 60, nor my Colt DS; etc.

 

[Bob A]

Except most of that, and what he is being charged under, isn’t thumbing their nose at SCOTUS.

My addendum was intended to address the range of infringement, which Bruen may support removing. If your issue is regarding nose-thumbing, take it up with Inigoes, whom I quoted.

 

[press1280]

Except most of that, and what he is being charged under, isn’t thumbing their nose at SCOTUS. None of it is new ordinances or laws he is being charged under and none of those ordinances or laws have been litigated under the new Bruen standards and are not otherwise related to the opinion in Bruen. It looks like almost all (all?) of the charges he is facing are violations of NY SAFE act on possession of the “assault” weapons (8 counts), 13 counts for unregistered handguns (no idea what law that is, but NY has had it for decades). I am not sure what the other 4 charges are. Might be related to assault weapons that cannot be possessed, or related to only having a premise permit and not a carry permit (one charge is for carrying an unregistered handgun).

NY’s new sensitive places laws is absolutely thumbing their nose at SCOTUS over Bruen, but he isn’t being charged under any of that at all. Maybe he could make an argument he couldn’t get a carry permit because of something NY hasn’t done away with. But all those “illegal” guns and guns that should have been registered are existing laws on the books years before Bruen.

I expect many of them WILL fall. But no states are proactive at removing laws that MIGHT be unconstitutional based on SCOTUS opinions. They do sometimes remove laws and generally stop enforcement of laws directly tied to an opinion. But a change in review standards? Never heard of a state dropping a law or stopping enforcement over laws that MIGHT now be considered unconstitutional because a standard of review was changed. It takes lawsuits or criminal cases to get those changes.

You may be right. It does seem the reported inventory of assault weapons and large cap mags are not able to be registered or licensed in the city.
If the law is found unconstitutional then he’s got a shot since you can’t register the unregisterable.

 

[rseymorejr]

"...huge gun stash found"​

"Cops recovered a total of 30 guns"

LOL! 30 guns? Huge stash?

 

[lazarus]

"...huge gun stash found"​

"Cops recovered a total of 30 guns"

LOL! 30 guns? Huge stash?

I mean, it is more than I own. But until it is more than the (many) scores my wife's uncle or my friend own, not sure I'd call that huge.

Whenever I read those, other than occasional "police/ATF removed hundreds of guns, including from under floor boards and from in walls" type article, all I can think of is "that's some small D reporter talking about some guy with an average D as if it's huge. Poor guy".

 

[JohnnyE]

In the body of the article it was termed "...a massive weapons stash...".

I see he lives in Kew Gardens, That's where the notorious Kitty Genovese murder occured. Horrid.

Murder of Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bcr229]

I read elsewhere that the FPC is trying to get in touch with this guy and/or his defense attorneys, so hopefully he'll have the financial backing to fight it and not plea out.

 

[press1280]

"...huge gun stash found"​

"Cops recovered a total of 30 guns"

LOL! 30 guns? Huge stash?

What seems to escape the media is that even if he had 1000 guns he still only has 2 arms with which to use them.