The arresting officers must be fuming over this, and I can't say I'd really blame them. They stop a guy who is
1) speeding,
2) doesn't produce a driver's license at all, and turns out to have a suspended license,
3) has an outstanding arrest warrant,
4) has a loaded gun in his car without the accompanying license that would be required for an ordinary law-abiding citizen in the state to do this, and
5) claims he's entitled to have the gun because he's a LEO
And then the case goes to court and the judge agrees with the perp!
Of course, he'll still face legal consequences for the speeding, driving with suspended license, running from warrant, and whatever he did to get the warrant. But saying this guy should have any privileges based on holding LEO status just seems bass-ackwards.
This seems to me a precursor of that sort of ruling.
Of course, this could be the exception, an honest New York Judge, but I don't really know that.
I have no law background. It was my understanding, if a military personnel was under orders, local law officials could not interfere with that person in the performance of his official duties. When the Navy paid in cash, the personnel that went to pick up the money routinely carried Thompson sub machine guns. Similarly, when moving brig prisoners on or off the base..
The Coast Guard is different than other military services because it is not bound by the posse comitatus act (I believe) because Coast Guard personnel can enforce some Federal laws.
The interesting thing about this case is that the person was not on official duty IMHO