NY Man Arrested for Having 9 Rounds In Gun Instead Of 7

Gregory Dean, Jr. was pulled over by a police officer in Upstate New York because his license plate lamp wasn’t working. When the cop approached Dean’s vehicle, he saw a .40-caliber pistol in the passenger seat, partially covered by a sweatshirt. The officer checked to make sure the handgun was legally registered and possessed by Dean, and in fact it was. Dean was a legal gun owner.

However, upon closer inspection of the firearm, the officer found out that there were nine rounds in the gun’s magazine. This is a violation of the incorrectly named New York SAFE Act, which places the maximum limit at seven rounds. So, Dean was no longer the innocent and law-abiding citizen that he thought he was (besides the minor license plate light infraction). He was subsequently charged with “unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices” as well as “third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation” and arrested. He was an illegal and non-law-abiding gun owner after all.

This in only one example showing how the New York SAFE Act and gun control in general targets otherwise law-abiding citizens. I don’t count having a broken license plate lamp as breaking the law. That’s a mere code violation. And yet, it makes more sense than the arbitrary limit placed on gun-owners to have no more than seven rounds in their gun magazines.

Conservatives say this all the time, but it bears repeating:  what criminal is going to care about the seven round rule? Once a criminal decides he’s going to commit a mass murder, there’s no amount of laws aiming to restrict his access to guns and/or ammo that would prevent him from carrying his murder mission out.

He’s not going to care if the law only allows seven rounds in his magazine. He’d probably prefer at least a thirty-round magazine, and he’d likely have several of them. And he’s not going to care that semi-automatic rifles are banned either. He’s a criminal. He doesn’t care about the law.

Now, if there were plenty of gun-owning citizens, like Mr. Dean above, they could dramatically reduce the number of victims of a potential mass murder by taking out the criminal. They would help to save lives, something that the SAFE Act is incapable of doing. In fact, if it was known that there were many gun-owners in that area and that gun ownership was legal or even encouraged, maybe the murderer would decide against his mission altogether. It would be more or less a suicide mission. Of course, maybe he’d just choose a gun-free zone to shoot up. Like a school or a movie theater.

The only people who are going to be concerned with these laws are those that aren’t criminals. And if they’re found in violation of any of these gun codes, they’re turned in to criminals by gun-grabbing politicians and arrested by police who are just “doing their job.”