A LOOK AT THE LEGENDARY SINGING STARS DaQuan Bowers

[Morgan]

DaQuan Bowers interviewed as a member of a gospel music group.  Doesn't seem like a gun-totting thug to me.

[Dolorous Jason]

Looks like a menace to society to me.....LOCK HIM AWAY !!! Heil Bloomberg !! Heil Bloomberg !!

[BucNY]

NY has effectively criminalized anyone who wants to carry a gun. I think more pro athletes should carry guns, especially the ones who wear 100K worth of diamonds on a daily basis. NY has pushed this gun law to the furthest extent and we can all vouch for how well it has done. We read Bowers carrying carrying a loaded gun and what do you think? Ahhh, he's a criminal, what a bad guy, a thug, a menace to society. He was exercising his constitutional right, the only thing he did wrong was bring it into an airport and now he's a villian and a problem.

Makes me sick.....

[BucNY]

Oh by the way, he told the check in clerk he had a gun in his bag. Sounds like a real sneaky guy.

[BucNY]

Ask any New York criminal defense lawyer from Manhattan or Brooklyn to Queens or Westchester County. There are few charges less forgiving and more aggressively enforced than Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.03 (CPW 2). This crime is ruthless in its application and the potential impact is devastating. The law is very clear. If you are convicted of this offense there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 year in prison and a maximum term of 15 years in prison. What compounds this matter is that this sentence is applicable for those with no previous record. In fact, even if you have a permit out of state, if you possess that firearm in New York without a permit here (see New York Airport Gun and Criminal Possession of a Weapon), you will still be charged with this offense.

Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree – NY PL 265.03(3)

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.03(3) when that person possesses a loaded firearm (pistol, revolver, handgun, etc.) outside his or her home or place of business without a permit regardless of what the intent was. If that was not clear enough, if you possess your duly licensed pistol from Maine, Texas or New Jersey in New York without a license in this state and it is loaded, you are going to be charged with this offense. What makes matters worse is that under the laws of New York, "loaded" does not mean a clip in the gun or a bullet in the cylinder. If the firearm is capable of being loaded and the bullets are in the case with the gun or even in your pocket, you can still potentially be charged with this offense. Unfortunately, ignorance of the law in New York is no defense. Whether you are properly checking the firearm at LaGuardia or JFK Airports in Queens or have it anywhere else in New York, possessing that firearm will land you in state prison without an assertive and compelling defense.

My guess is that  Bowers was trying to check this thing in legally but had no idea he was going to be arrested because he didn't have a permit in NY. Also if you read closely "loaded" does necessarily mean bullet in chamber. Could mean bullets are outside of the gun but in the same box as the gun. Looks like Bowers may be going away for a while. Big penalty to pay for not knowing the law. Hope he has a good a lawyer.

http://www.new-york-lawyers.org/lawyer-attorney-1580412.html

[BucNtears]

Laws differ, though maybe he was thinking he was ok, he wasn't.  My understanding is, with a handgun, in must cases as long has you have the weapon unloaded and the bullets separately(another bag) you're ok.

[BucNY]

Laws differ, though maybe he was thinking he was ok, he wasn't.  My understanding is, with a handgun, in must cases as long has you have the weapon unloaded and the bullets separately(another bag) you're ok.

Not in the 5 burroughs of NY. To own a hand gun in those areas you need a special permit. Even if you have a legally licensed gun in NY, you can't bring it into those 5 regions without being arrested on the same charge.

[BucNtears]

Well, lets hope the punishment fits the crime.  Never met the man, seems like a good guy from everything I've read.

[1sparkybuc]

There is no doubt that NYC's tough gun laws have saved countless lives. Just for the record, a pocket knife with a 3" blade will get you arrested as well. A serious problem calls for a serious solution. NYC is a safer place because of these laws. The people there know the penalty and the vast majority obey the law. What Bowers did was incredibly stupid but there was no criminal intent. Hopefully the Judge he gets will take that into account when he is sentenced, and he will be.

It is a national shame that the NRA can so openly buy the vote of so many of our legislatures to support ridiculous and outdated laws. No private citizen should have the right to own weapons designed for combat or war, and there have to be some common sense rules regulating the process of buying legal rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

We can never completely eliminate the senseless slaughter of innocents we have seen in recent years, but there are ways to reduce the opportunity and impact. It's too bad our lawmakers place a higher value on the campaign contributions of the NRA than they do the lives of our children.

[dalbuc]

There is no doubt that NYC's tough gun laws have saved countless lives. Just for the record, a pocket knife with a 3" blade will get you arrested as well. A serious problem calls for a serious solution. NYC is a safer place because of these laws. The people there know the penalty and the vast majority obey the law. What Bowers did was incredibly stupid but there was no criminal intent. Hopefully the Judge he gets will take that into account when he is sentenced, and he will be.

It is a national shame that the NRA can so openly buy the vote of so many of our legislatures to support ridiculous and outdated laws. No private citizen should have the right to own weapons designed for combat or war, and there have to be some common sense rules regulating the process of buying legal rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

We can never completely eliminate the senseless slaughter of innocents we have seen in recent years, but there are ways to reduce the opportunity and impact. It's too bad our lawmakers place a higher value on the campaign contributions of the NRA than they do the lives of our children.

I'd say there a ton of doubt..I'd bet you can't produce a single study that shows this has done diddly to reduce crime or save a life. ...and don't be lazy. Crime rates are dropping across the country so don't give me some simple then and now comparison.

Zero tolerance laws, much like 3 strikes laws are insane because they create scenarios like this.

[SunnyD]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

[Morgan]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Holy **CENSORED**e, did DQB have an assault weapon and magazine?

He's definitely screwed. I'd hate to be him.

[Morgan]

Have Gun? Don't Travel!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/01/13/have-gun-dont-travel/

[1sparkybuc]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

[DefenseWins]

I have for many years and will be a paying member for the rest of my life.

If people want to get stupid political in here, I am game.

What is the argument in support of banning assault rifles and/or reducing magazine capacity?

Apparently it is not so common sense. If you are not in law enforcement or the military you have no need, and you should not have the right. It's as simple as that. I am a gun owner. I have weapons for hunting and for self defense. I also have dogs and a security system. I don't feel the need to get a permit to carry a gun with me every where I go. Not every American has the right to own a gun. This is not the 1700s. We are not at war with England and most of us get our meat at the local market. Guns are not a necessity of life and the people that wrote the Constitution were dealing with flintlocks, not AK-47s.

After what happened in December I thought no politician would dare argue against background checks. I was wrong. Too complicated, too expensive, and unenforceable. BS. Pass the costs along to the purchaser. We have to start somewhere. We've got nutjobs watching the news and planning ways to kill even more for bigger headlines. Isn't it worth it if we can eliminate even one Sandy Hook? Fully automatic weapons and high capacity magazines belong in our armories, not in our homes. I know they account for a very small percentage of deaths each year, but again, if it eliminates even one Sandy Hook, to me it's worth the effort.

I am not advocating taking guns away from everybody, but I am in favor of some reasonable limits and restrictions. I also favor mandatory safety training for all first time buyers. Background checks are essential. I've had two friends and two relatives die as the result of gunshot wounds. One was accidental and three were intentional. Two of the three were justifiable, and one saved me the trouble. Maybe it takes a tragic experience to make some people come to their senses. You would think a mass burial of children would be enough. You'd be wrong.

All of our personal feelings aside, do you know why it was and still is seen as so important for the citizens to not lose their gun rights?

The learned lesson that the nature of government is to expand until it's out of control and the citizens will need to defend themselves from their own government.

That is why, regardless of how any of us feel.