Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Silver Creek man with assault rifles charged

June 10, 2013

SILVER CREEK — Sun-day afternoon, the Chautau-qua County Sheriff’s Office received a report of a man leaving his residence carrying two assault rifles, following an altercation with two other......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

Christopher

Jun-10-13 7:14 AM

Well, at least this time we're not calling it an arrest due to violations of The NYS Safe Act.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-10-13 8:33 AM

Was he trying to sell them Paul?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jun-10-13 8:51 AM

Hey Paul, go tell the perp that he was breaking the law ! Learned posters ?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

robert

Jun-10-13 9:17 AM

doesn't matter if he was trying to sell them. did you miss the part of the article that mentioned "prior felonies"??? Felons aren't allowed to own weapons or even vote for that matter.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

krich320

Jun-10-13 9:36 AM

According to the Board of Elections for NYS Felons can vote as long as they are not in prison or on parole. ***********elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Keddie

Jun-10-13 9:43 AM

New Sheriff in town ironic or not. As far as the guns go I never saw a gun kill anybody or anything. People "KILL" not guns. It's our right to have guns as long as we meet the requirements. Good people should have guns! Bad people will get a gun if they want one, laws won't change that. Wake up before all your freedoms are gone!

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-10-13 9:47 AM

Makes no difference. The last guy was trying to sell to a FELON, and that was illegal BEFORE the NYS Safe Act! This guy was in possession of them and a CONVICTED FELON, also illegal BEFORE the NYS Safe Act. Are we all clear now?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Jun-10-13 11:00 AM

At this time it sounds like a good catch to me; based upon decades old state and federal law. The BIG question now is whether the DA will prosecute on these original charges or allow the matter to be plea dealed down to what amounts to be a parking ticket "in the interest of justice", as is all too commonly done.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Jun-10-13 11:01 AM

this guy would have been charged under previous laws as Christopher stated and as those laws say should get the max.NY SAFE ACT not needed/repeal now.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-10-13 5:34 PM

Christopher-prior to the SAFE act,the weapons he had would not have been classified as "Assault weapons" and thus he would not have been charged in violation being in possession of what are now classified as illegal "assualt weapons".He was charged(rightfully so) under provisions that pre existed the safe act. That is the reason Mr Wassel was charged under the provisions of the SAFE act in addition to selling to a felon,are we really clear now?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-10-13 8:20 PM

joew im not sticking up for Christopher but in this case he is right a convicted felon can not be in position of a gun at all regardless of the weapons classification. But this also proves the safe act is not needed just enforce the laws already on the books!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-10-13 8:20 PM

procession not position

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-10-13 8:22 PM

Joew.."in addition to" is the key. The headlines ONLY mentioned the Safe Act at the time of arrest. The last time it was in the news, it also ONLY mentioned the Safe Act. There was no mention of an attempt to sell a gun to a Felon, not in the headlines.Are YOU clear now?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-10-13 9:25 PM

Never disagreed that he should not have been charged since he is a convicted felon. I was merely commenting that the difference was Mr Wassell was attempting to sell what are now considered illegal weapons thus he was charged under the provisions of the safe act. The Observer reported it correctly. The latest arrest was made because the man was a convicted felon but he was not attempting to sell the weapons.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Roadglide

Jun-11-13 2:02 AM

Yet another lovely arrest against a gun owner just like the "first safe act arrest". Guess there's no end to these.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mattdillon

Jun-11-13 8:17 AM

Roadglide are you for real? Man leaves a residence after having an altercation of some sort and is carrying long guns down the street and you blame this on the safe act? Holy cow you are definately part of the problem.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web