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

No action at conference for man charged under SAFE Act

June 6, 2013

It is still a waiting game in the case of Benjamin Wassell....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(15)

HVANCDY

Jun-06-13 9:06 PM

Does the Dumbkirk Observer have an official KOOL-AID CLUB - Bad Article !

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-06-13 1:12 PM

EXACTLY kcw, exactly!! I have been trying to make this point ever since this case became public. Most of what I call "gun nuts" don't want to hear that!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-06-13 1:03 PM

Marcia-where does it say anything in favor of selling guns to felons? Please point that out to us and give Judeye a call and have her show where the article is misleading.Thank you so much for your honest reply.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Jun-06-13 1:03 PM

What I feel has been "misleading" about this story all along, has been the continued "marketing" of it by the media at large under the banner of "NY SAFE Act violation". There have been four charges laid against the defendant, three of which are felonies and the other a misdemeanor. The sole SAFE Act involvement relates only to the misdemeanor, the far more serious felony charges are based upon laws that have been on the books for several decades at least; the most serious in my opinion being the sale of a firearm to a person understood by the seller to be a felon. That's been federal law since 68' I believe. But would a headline of: "Suspect alleged to have sold gun to proclaimed felon" (the more serious charges by far) attract the readership attention that banner reference to the highly controversial SAFE Act does?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Jun-06-13 10:45 AM

So Steiner, you see no problem with selling guns to admitted felons? Is that what all conservatives think, of just you?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-06-13 10:02 AM

Roadglide, that comment is just too stupid to reply to. If you can't see the difference, I have nothing to say that you'd understand.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Jun-06-13 9:09 AM

I'm guessing but I think what they are referring to is the no action possibility. In my opinion it should not even be a possibility. He broke the law. He should be punished.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jun-06-13 8:48 AM

The liberals, christopher and judeye think the article is slanted or misleading , huh ? The article decribes the alleged perp nicely.What part of that is confusing ? This is confusing to democrats ? Cuomo is running for prez, he has to make the world safe for the criminals, as it is in all our major cities now, even for the boston bombers. Libs honestly believe criminals will follow the law ! No perception problem there , eh libs ? we may need publishing guidelines from our learned libs to avoid confusing them. libs can wave the flag, but not conservatives. You libs, full of cognitive disorders !

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-06-13 8:15 AM

Judeye-could you please point out what is misleading about the article? I have read it three times and can not for the life of me find anything misleading. Could you please point out to me(us)what it is that is misleading?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Roadglide

Jun-06-13 7:57 AM

Oh but wait Christopher when the articles have mentioned his military time. Aren't you the one in the observer that writes articles and has the photo with the Vietnam veteran hat. Seems your wavin your flag too???

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Roadglide

Jun-06-13 7:44 AM

Christopher and Judeye please stop your killing my ears with your blah blah blah blah save the children, sold to a felon who was a pos SP BCI under cover officer then arrest under a bs law

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jun-06-13 6:46 AM

I agree with Christopher. I find this article very misleading and slanted. He was charged with selling guns out of his car to an undercover agent. The agent then went on to state that he was a convicted felon. That did not stop the sale of the high powered weapons to be sold.

The charges against this person...and yes they are only charges, and he remains innocent until proven guilty....are very serious and have nothing to do with the right to bear arms. It has everything to do with illegal gun sales to convicted felons. Something reflective by the many discussions in the comment section of this paper, most if not all, of us are against.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Jun-06-13 6:45 AM

Paul saying the man is a veteran is not an attempt to put him a rung up,it's standard in most every article about someone. Does the fact that someone who announced they are running for County Clerk and has four sons make them better qualified?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-06-13 5:48 AM

Unless of course one is ok with selling guns to convicted Felons.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jun-06-13 5:48 AM

IF, and I do say IF, Mr. Wassell is guilty as charged, he would have been guilty even before the NYS Safe Act was passed. All the NYS Safe Act did was to add charges. What does Mr. Wassell's veteran status have to do with anything? Does that give him Above the Law status? This article seems more than a tad slanted to me. Bear in mind, the REAL ISSUE here is an attempt to sell a gun to an identified FELON!!! What kind of gun is hugely secondary.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 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