States still ‘gun’ for unsuspecting firearm owners

Gee, these people tried to do the right thing, and look at the thanks they got.

Bruce

"Each case is unique, but virtually every case of otherwise law-abiding citizens running afoul of draconian gun laws – in New York or elsewhere – falls into one of the following broad categories: ignorance, forgetfulness, legally passing through or odds-playing (following the old adage that it’s better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6).
...
Both Meredith Graves and Ryan Jerome thought they were complying with the law when they attempted to surrender their weapons for safekeeping. They saw the signs and tried to obey.

Unfortunately they didn’t see any “No Guns” signs when they crossed into New York. Both should have educated themselves about the gun laws where they were traveling, but they didn’t and that ignorance could cost them dearly.

Had they ignored the signs (as real criminals do), they both would likely have completed their visits and returned home without incident. Instead, they tried to be law-abiding and now face mandatory minimum 3.5-year sentences on felony charges. I’m certainly not advocating ignoring a “No Guns” sign, especially if that sign has the force of law behind it, but the fact is, without metal detectors, perimeter security and so forth, a sign is just a sign.
...
A decision to carry a gun for defense brings with it a raft of responsibilities. The defensive mindset that should accompany carrying – situational awareness and avoidance strategies, competence with the firearm and the moral implications of using deadly force – needs to extend to the legal and political environment as well. It must be understood that even a clearly justified defensive use of a firearm – which saves your life – can easily cost your home and life savings. Deadly force is serious business. No one should take the decision lightly, and threat recognition needs to include recognizing the threat posed by state power – particularly in states like New York."