I hope he sues the chit out of the fools.

http://nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics-firearms-self-defense-weapons/45179-sks-question.html

That was a painful read.

The guy is 43 and living with with his parents. Police respond to a domestic and cuff him for a Norinco SKS with folding stock. Sounds like it had a fixed mag. I'm not a 922 (r) expert but if that stock is aftermarket could that come into play?

nvm.

He got cherged with an AW possession, not a 922 violation. The charge is obviously total bullshit as the rifle does not meet an AW definition. That goes to show that anything "scary looking" can bring about charges in NYS. I doubt the DA will even prosecute, unless Angela Corey moved to NYS. Hope the guy getssome money for a false arrest.

FUAC!

More evidence that the cops are going to jam you up for anything that even looks close to a modern sporting rifle.  They want control over you as much as cumhole and the legislature.

Well, if he is telling the truth, he moved back in with his parents to take care of them, he states his father has battled cancer twice in the past year, and his mother sounds like she has some mental issues...it is kind of a messed up story, but regardless, an SKS should not be an AW, so it sounds like a BS arrest. If true, hope he does sue....shouldn't matter as far as the folding stock goes, if it is not an "AW", its not...same reasoning as an AR, fixed mag, not an "AW" you can have anything you want on it...collapsible stock, bayo lug, etc, etc....

It would be nice to see the officer insisting on arrest lose his job and all benefits and living in a cardboard box if the charges are dropped....

Look at how much confusion there is on a website dedicated to guns. Now multiply that confusion a few times and you will begin to understand how much your average cop knows about the unSAFE act.

Cops don't have to know the law, there are very few repercussions for stuff like this.  Just "oops, my bad", and "I'll try not to do that again."  They're not the ones that have to defend themselves, because, mostly, they are above the law.  



 

I was listening to a retired officer talk guns the other day. Telling my boss about his Beretta that you had to re-cock after every shot.
Then about how he won't carry a .45 cocked and locked. He even went into scaring people by racking a pump shotgun.
Not all cops are Arfcom material.

Here's what's going to happen:

He's going to pay a lawyer at least $10,000 to get the charges dropped.

He's going to abandon the SKS because it'll cost $500+ to file the paperwork to get it back.

Nothing will happen to the LEO.

It will never make the news again.

Sadly, probably correct...

Although, I really have to ask...why should it cost ANYTHING or have ANY paperwork required to get a piece of property back that was unlawfully or incorrectly siezed in the first place. If the charges are dropped, there should be an automatic order from the judge saying return the siezed property. Period. Just go pick it up...

What sort of hoops do they make you jump through to retrieve your own property that was wrongly siezed?

Shows how corrupt and broken the system is...

Looks like the charges were dropped without an legal battle. Doesn't say anything about the rifles, but I assume since all charges were dropped he can just get them back.

And he really, really needs to sue for false arrest, that is how these ignorant lackwits will get the message. Don't arrest people if you don't know the law.

Geez. I think we hit all the key words on that one.

It is NOT false arrest. Google is your friend. Look up the legal standard.

My basic understanding of false arrest is that it has to violate "clearly established law"

So that would be arresting me for the murder of Person Y while Person Y is standing there talking to the cops saying nothing happened.

The problem here is that a reasonable Police Officer can not be expected to make an on the scene determination of what constitutes an "assault weapon", since there have apparently NOT been any Court cases on the SKS. Whether the SKS is an AW is a question of fact to be decided by a Judge. As you can see below, he probably can not sustain a false arrest case.

Perhaps the most common type of civil rights case involves false arrest.  Generally speaking, a "false arrest" occurs when a police officer (or sometimes a private person or business) detains or confines a person against his or her will and without proper legal authority.

A false arrest potentially violates both federal civil rights law and state common law.  Although the basic definition of false arrest is the same under federal and state law, the procedural rules governing false arrest claims under federal and state law are very different and must be complied with strictly or the person's case will be thrown out of court.  This discussion outlines these differing rules.

Anyone who believes they have been falsely arrested should consult with a qualified civil rights lawyer immediately.

Probable Cause

A false arrest claim under federal law arises from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides, in relevant part:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ."  A false arrest, therefore, involves the "unreasonable" "seizure" of a "person."  This language has been interpreted over the centuries to prohibit an arrest without probable cause.  The same definition is used under state law.

Probable cause is the most important concept in false arrest cases.

What is "probable cause"?  Probable cause means "information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested."  Probable cause does not mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt or proof by a preponderance of the evidence.  It does not mean the person is guilty.  It simply means that the police officer had a "reasonable belief" that the person committed a crime.

This is a very low standard, one that is usually satisfied by police officers who perform their jobs competently and in good faith.  (An even lower standard -- "reasonable suspicion" -- is required to justify a so-called investigative stop-and-frisk.)  Importantly, just because a person in fact is innocent, there still may be probable cause for his arrest.

The existence of probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest, under both federal law and state law.  If the police officer had probable cause, therefore, even if the person was innocent, the police officer (or the city) will not be liable for false arrest.  This means that many claims for false arrest will be defeated in court, once the police officer shows the court the evidence he relied upon in arresting the plaintiff.

source ?

No, I agree. The case should be dismissed and he should get the LEGAL gun back. I just don't see a false arrest case.

So were the charges dropped or not? I want to take an SKS to a range.

Knowing that, what's your take on this particular situation, given the information we have?

What if he had installed a detachable mag on his SKS

I know they do make them, not that I would ever own any.

He clearly says his SKS had an original fixed magazine.

If the safe act and the rest of the penal code clearly defining the SKS as not being illegal (no detachable mag=not assault weapon) does not stop a cop from arresting someone for having an SKS, then the legal definition of false arrest should not stop someone from filing a lawsuit. If nothing else, the mere existence of the suit, regardless of how far it gets, may prompt an agency to start training its officers to think twice before making safe act arrests.

A good lawyer can build a case even if the actual circumstances do not automatically qualify as false arrest (e.g. disputing the legitimacy of the claimed probable cause, etc.). And once one case is built, anyone can file a pro se lawsuit using that same wording. It's very easy, you type it on a page (or write it) and file it in court.

SKS is GTG as long as it's not a Tapco-fucked AK lookalike and still has the fixed mag.

Also, you have 10 rifle rounds and a bayonet...

Yes, he does. But the news report doesn't. He also said the police had no reason to, "even come into the house" after his mom pointed a gun at him and 911 was called

The guy posted in the linked thread that no charges were dropped and he has court on the 26th with no layer.  

God speed friend.  

I predict that they kick him out and tell him to come back with a layer.

They didn't read him his Miranda rights either.
Those few statements aside an SKS with original magazine should still be unSAFE legal.

I am surprised nobody had picked up this case to help this guy.

Did they ask him any questions or ask him to give a statement?

I know. That's what I was pointing out. Sometimes it's hard to express sarcasm across the internet.

Doesn't change the magazine configuration of the SKS.

Tapco-fucked Ak lookalike is fine from an unSAFE act stand point. As long as the magazine is original it can have any "evil" feature you want.

Have you ever seen a Tapco-fucked SKS that hasn't been "upgraded" with a duckbill detachable mag?

Hah. Valid point. For what it's worth I have heard nothing but positive reviews of Tapcos 20 rd mags.