Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COMBAT VETERAN ARRESTED! [accused of possessing high-capacity magazines for an assault rifle]
The Right Perspective ^ | January 31, 2013

Posted on 01/31/2013 9:15:57 PM PST by Rig4Dive

Nathan Haddad, a decorated combat veteran with multiples deployments to Afghanistan, who has spent spent 12 years serving his Country in the United States Army, is now under Arrest!


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; arrested; banglist; ftdrum; government; guncontrol; nathanhaddad; newyork; secondamendment; veteran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Gene Eric
Thanks for the ping. Finding the actual link required some looking.

COMBAT VETERAN ARRESTED! NY

21 posted on 01/31/2013 10:42:09 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Get out of liberal land.

This is a method to make prison populations more quota equal. A lot of non-criminal white boys, who won’t surrender their rights, will end up in prison for acting as free men.


22 posted on 01/31/2013 10:43:18 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
For anybody interested in the Fourth Amendment. If you are concerned about this type of police activity never ever give consent to search. By giving a consent to search you are giving up your 4th amendment protections. By not giving your consent to search the police are required to build probable cause for a search.

Should you be arrested for anything in your vehicle the first thing your lawyer should do is challenge the circumstances under which your car was searched. He can't do that if you gave up your 4th amendment protections.

There are ways they can get around the 4th amendment. One is a dog. Let's say you pull up to a "safety check point" and the police have dog running around the cars. This is legal and has been held up in court as not violating your privacy rights. If they ask to put the dog in the car you can refuse. Hypothetically, if in a case like this one they used a dope sniffing dog, said he alerted, searched the car, found no drugs and then came up with the magazines then I expect a defense attorney would challenge the dog and the results of the search.

There are some police who are really good (like Obi Wan Kenobi good) at getting people to give consent to search. A good friend of mine popped a couple guys carrying 100 lbs. of cocaine, that gave him consent to search off a simple traffic stop. He knew they had the drugs, but when he asked politely there was something about the way he asked that kept them from saying no.

23 posted on 01/31/2013 11:01:54 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

I read the midnight law passed by NY legislature and it appears they back-dated it to 1 January, though it was passed around the 18th. (I’m not a lawyer)

My reading is woe unto the purchaser of a banned gun between 1st and 18th or so January - you are now a potential felon.

If a New Yorker bought one of these weapons of mass destruction, and waited the multi-day period, and took possession of said gun, they are now a potential felon.

A Latin term that might be applied is ‘ex post facto’. Turns out that these buyers broke the law before there even was a law. Go figure.

The other notable item in this hastily passed law is that there is no exemption for LEOs or military. That means that virtually every NY Guardsman or military member will soon become a felon because they have AR magazines as part of their required kit.

Wait until a cop pulls over a PFC at Ft. Drum with a Government issued AR mag. He’s a lawbreaker now.

Speaking of lawbreakers, under this law as written, every cop who has a standard magazine in their service pistol is also subject to arrest. God forbid he has an AR in his patrol car.

Heh heh. Can New Yorkers now make a citizen’s arrest on every cop not carrying a revolver? Not until July or so.


24 posted on 01/31/2013 11:57:28 PM PST by KitJ (Shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; Old Sarge
I did a little searching. Nathan Haddad is a wounded veteran, a retired Army Staff Sergeant who served at Fort Drum, New York.

"Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court."

Watertown, New York, is 70 miles north of Syracuse, N.Y. The Army's Fort Drum is nearby.

LeRay Man Faces Weapons Possessions Charges

Fox 28 News - Watertown, New York - January 7, 2013

A town of LeRay man was accused Sunday of possessing high-capacity magazines for an assault rifle.

Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies say 32 year old Nathan Haddad allegedly had five 30-round magazines for an AR-15 rifle in his possession. Police say the magazines were found during a vehicle check on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay.

Haddad was charged with five counts of third degree criminal possession of a weapon and arraigned in Watertown town court.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/LeRay-Man-Faces-Weapons-Possessions-Charges-185853881.html

25 posted on 02/01/2013 12:12:21 AM PST by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Agent provocateur??


26 posted on 02/01/2013 12:35:23 AM PST by Dick Bachert ("Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rig4Dive

Thank you for joining Free Republic and posting this story. I have linked a confirmation of it from Fox 28 News (Watertown, N.Y.) in Reply #25 of this thread.

Nathan Haddad should have the support of patriotic Americans. . . this needs to get national attention.


27 posted on 02/01/2013 12:39:39 AM PST by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

For those who may be suspicious of blog articles, please see the Fox News confirmation in Reply #25. I will post more information about Staff Sgt. Nathan Haddad in this thread.


28 posted on 02/01/2013 12:42:28 AM PST by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: deks; Rig4Dive

Thanks for the link, and for the original post R4D.

I wonder if the brief article is leaving something out, like he is a convicted felon or something and if the existing laws would prevent him from having magazines? Which in itself can be debated. If someone is deemed to be fit to be out of prison, why can they not enjoy all of their God given rights?

Or - the cops are jumping the gun on the new laws.


29 posted on 02/01/2013 12:46:52 AM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: deks

The following is a link to another blog with more information. No indication that Haddad had any run-ins with the law previously. Sounds like he was pulled over in the same small town where he lives.

I used to live in a small town. The nice thing is that everybody knows everybody. The bad thing is that everybody knows everybody.

http://wramsite.com/forum/topics/line-in-the-sand-crossed-ny-arrest-of-army-vet-in-possession-of?commentId=3567481%3AComment%3A1492268&xg_source=activity


30 posted on 02/01/2013 1:00:17 AM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
Second: why did he allow the cops to search his car?

It works like this: You don't give permission to search the car, the bear phones home and then informs you that you will stay there at that location until the sniffer K-9 shows up in, oh, about 3-1/2 hours.

Capiche?

Your rights are zero.

31 posted on 02/01/2013 1:03:27 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: deks

Watertown is to Ft. Drum like Fayet-nam is to Ft. Bragg. Columbus to Ft. Benning. Barstow to Ft. Irwin. Leesville to Fort Polk, and so on. It is a city with a lot of soldiers running around next to a major Army base.

Watertown *should* be a soldier-known place to local law enforcement ( I say ‘soldier known’ and NOT ‘soldier friendly’ - no place in New York that I’ve been to likes soldiers).

NY - you hate me and I hate you so we’re even. Haven’t met an NY’er yet that didn’t hate me for being Southern. Suck it Sheep.

As I’ve said in other posts, the new NY law places all LEOs and soldiers in violation of the law. Now, who will arrest the law enforcers or the lawmakers?


32 posted on 02/01/2013 1:22:50 AM PST by KitJ (Shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Haddad was stopped at a State Police Checkpoint and 5 AR-15 magazines were found in the trunk of his car....Dumbass. Why did he allow them to search his trunk?


33 posted on 02/01/2013 1:31:57 AM PST by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

You don’t give permission to search the car, the bear phones home and then informs you that you will stay there at that location until the sniffer K-9 shows up in, oh, about 3-1/2 hours....Could be quite lucrative. Unlawful detention. “The right to REASONABLE search and seizure.”


34 posted on 02/01/2013 1:41:01 AM PST by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Safetgiver; lentulusgracchus

I interpret it this way...

“I do not consentr to a search of my vehicle, am I free to go?”

At which point the law enforcment officer has to make a decision, arrest, mirand-ize you to place you into custody (which IS lawful, it may not be right, but it is lawful) at which time you are compelled to comply to the arrest, but the non consent to the search is still in effect...

I would pull a fast one and request a phone call to your attorney, which in these days is a must have, no matter what the cost...Most times an attorney looks to make money on the back side of situations like this, and when you find one, keep them handy on speed-dial...

Never utter the words “yes” or “no” in your response to the question of search...I know it seems hard to do, but it is necessary to ensure that the ecording of the encounter cannot be clipped to not include context of your statement in response...This is critical, and needs to be second nature to you and anyone with you, including a spouse or family member/friend(s) in the vehicle with you...

Upon exiting your vehicle, lock the vehicle upon your exit and place the keys in your pocket...Do not concent to a search of your vehicle, and your person...Instruct your passengers to NOT unlock or open the vehicle under any circumstances short of immediate life thratening danger to themselves while in your vehicle...

A law enforcement officer cannot legally gain entry into the vehicle if informed of your refusal without a warrant...So emptying your pockets and finding the keys does not give them authority, without a warrant to enter your vehicle before the warrant is served...

Asking the passengers to unlock and give them entry into the vehicle is also illegal, compelling them to exit the vehiccle is also improper for safety reasons, and still as soon as they exit the vehicle, it should be cleverly, and swiftly locked and doors shut as soon as they exit...

Coordinating a situation like this is difficult, but reasonable in these times...But it is necessary and proper to protect your liberties and freedoms...You may have “nothing to hide” but you have everything to protect, and that had better be honored by law enforcement, or their may be problems in the future...

You need to understand that these ideas are not legal advice, and may still not be applicable to specific state laws, but thy do give an idea that needs to be applied to specific state law and situations and adjusted accordingly...

You may very well have to take the “ride” for refusing, and refusing a search of your vehicle and person is NOT probable cause to seek a warrant, but in some cases where these “safety stops” are frequent in your area, they are prepared for folks like us,and you will have to take the ride for your resistance...

It may very well cause you loss of $$$$$$ to defend yourself, and your attorney needs to understand and be prepared and willing to take this issue all the way up,or not be utilized forthis purpose...I’m sure there are a ton of them out there when you lay the situation out there for them that will be ready to help you when the time comes...You just have to find the right one...

The decision is yours, and yours alone...

Just my opinion...


35 posted on 02/01/2013 2:25:56 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64; All

By the way, resisting to a point is acceptable, but battling it out on the side of the highway is not the place for it...Be safe and be concerned for the safety of all involved including the officer(s)...

On a side note, I am not surprised, nor am I sorry for the citizens of NY state in this regard...They elected this gaggle, and are now paying for it with their liberties and freedoms...I seriously doubt anything will ever happen to the elected cadre of progressives they put into office in that state...They made that bed, and now they get to enjoy the benefits of that effort...

To those who oppose this agenda by your elected officials, well...Stay where you are, do what is necessary to change the equation, no matter how long it takes...

All of this, once again will take the ultimate “gut-check” by the individual...It is a rhetorical question I have posted for years about this type of situation, and one not requiring a public, personal pontification of your intent on a forum such as this...

“What are YOU prepared to do about it??? And, what are YOU prepared to sacrifice to achieve that goal???”


36 posted on 02/01/2013 2:39:03 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
...place you into custody (which IS lawful, it may not be right, but it is lawful) at which time you are compelled to comply to the arrest, but the non consent to the search is still in effect...

Umm, what about "search incident to arrest"? I think they can do that. Just bust you and search you and let you sue 'em if you care, kind of thing.

Lots of cowboys in LE nowadays.

37 posted on 02/01/2013 2:47:09 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I just sent you a mail message about possibly pinging the New York list about this. . . (didn’t see you were already on the thread : )


38 posted on 02/01/2013 2:51:33 AM PST by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat
Musings of Mark Lavin last night: We're arming the muslim brotherhood with F-16s, while at the same time disarming law abiding Americans.

This damned administration is screwed up from top to bottom.

39 posted on 02/01/2013 3:04:28 AM PST by Northern Yankee (Where Liberty dwells, there is my Country. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rig4Dive
[accused of possessing high-capacity standard capacity magazines for an assault rifle]

There, fixed it for you.

40 posted on 02/01/2013 3:06:01 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson