Benjamin M. Wassell, right, stands with his attorney Michael S. Deal, center, and Assistant Attorney General Paul McCarthy, left, in a courtroom packed with supporters Wednesday. Photos by Mark Mulville/Buffalo News
The Buffalo News
Authorities, though, say Wassell flouted the new law by taking advantage of an increased demand for the banned assault-style weapons by adding features to make the two rifles he sold illegal and thereby increase their value.So, he sold guns to a guy who said he was a disqualified person. That right there is enough to make him a criminal. Plus, he sold a type of gun that was recently prohibited. This is more like "bad laws be damned." But, as Ghandi said, when doing civil disobedience, one must be prepared to pay the price.
He is accused of selling a Del-Ton AR-15 rifle, 299 rounds of ammunition and six large-capacity clips for $1,900 on Jan. 24, nine days after the SAFE Act was passed. That gun had an illegal pistol grip, telescoping butt and bayonet mount. On Feb. 24, he allegedly sold an Armalite AR-10 Magnum semiautomatic rifle with 21 rounds of ammunition for $2,600. That gun had a pistol grip.
Wassell is employed by a utility company to check rural gas lines and well heads, and also has a modest disability pension from his war injuries. He reportedly enhanced the guns to earn money to help support his family.
State police, in their complaint, pointed out that Wassell went through with the second sale even though the undercover officer told him he had a felony domestic violence conviction. Felons are prohibited from owning guns.
“In this case, he sold a dangerous assault weapon to an undercover police officer who could have very well been a dangerous felon looking to do harm in our community,” said one law enforcement official familiar with the case.
Wassell also allegedly was selling or attempting to sell several other guns that he had illegally modified.
“He would get the main portion of the gun, the receiver with the barrel, and make modifications, like adding a flash suppressor, telescoping butt, bayonet mount, features that are currently prohibited under the SAFE Act,” the official said.
The worst thing about this case is the failure to take responsibility for his actions. It's not his fault, it's never his fault. How many times have we heard gun-rights folks saying certain laws MAKE criminals out of law-abiding citizens? That's a pathetic shirking of accountability.
The pro-gun liars are touting this as the first bust of the NY Safe Act. But, wasn't it already a crime to sell a gun to someone you suspected of being a disqualified person?
And would someone please tell us what his having been a "war hero" has to do with it. As we recently discussed, I'm not the biggest fan of former-military guys wearing their war wounds like a crown, as Elton put it. In this case he sounds like a true hero, having been seriously wounded and risking further injury to save fellow Marines, but I ask again, what does that have to do with anything?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It is my responsibility not to harm innocent people. It is the government's responsibility not to pass laws against things that are not a harm. That's the difference.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, selling a gun to someone who identifies himself as having a violent felony on his record is rightly a crime. The rest of it is an unjust violation, and unjust laws are no laws at all. They're only force.
The SAFE Act is already being challenged, so look forward to most of this going away. Selling to a confessed felon will remain.
So then you agree it's a lie to pawn this story off as the first Safe Act violation.
DeleteNo, it's not a lie. It's the first Safe Act violation prosecution, it just comes with another violation that makes it a poor test case.
DeleteStop playing stupid--you're starting to convince us that you are.
Look, idiot. He has been charged with a violation of the obscenely misnamed "SAFE Act." To point that out is not to deny that he is also charged with other victimless "crimes," and is thus completely and verifiably true.
Delete"[p]ro-gun liars," my ass. There's definitely a liar here, but he isn't on the pro-gun side.
Go buy yourself a clue, because you clearly don't have one.
What is with you and the false dichotomy? Stories are more complex than that. Part of this is a SAFE Act violation, while part isn't.
DeleteHey guys, How'd it taste, eating Mike's lunch?
DeleteWas it...Delicious?
I can accept that it was both a Safe Act violation and another even more serious one. What I object to is the pro-gun attempt to paint this guy as an innocent victim of the unjust laws in NY.
DeleteKurt, why is it you cannot make a comment without including some namecalling? Is that a sign of your advanced intelligence or that you've got right on your side? It seems to me if you had either of those things going for yourself you wouldn't call people things like "idiot" and "sniveling, cowardly little punk."
Or is this part of that armed society that's a polite society. You're a big man with a gun, why do you have to insult people with names?
What I object to is the pro-gun attempt to paint this guy as an innocent victim of the unjust laws in NY.
DeleteThat's not what you said in your blog post:
The pro-gun liars are touting this as the first bust of the NY Safe Act.
The "pro-gun liars" stated a verifiable fact, and you called them "liars" for it. That, of course, makes you the liar--which in your case, sadly, is one of the kindest things to call you.
And remember "this?
So then you agree it's a lie to pawn this story off as the first Safe Act violation.
So who, again, is the liar?
Kurt, why is it you cannot make a comment without including some namecalling?
I can, and very often do, when not addressing idiots and sniveling, cowardly little punks. When addressing you, however, I am exerting maximum effort just to restrain myself from describing you in far more brutally honest terms.
The lie was painting the guy as an innocent victim of an unjust law. You should understand that of all people being one of the "bad rules be damned" guys. But whenever you blame the law instead of the lawbreaker you're lying.
DeleteAbout the name calling and insulting, you're one of the best at that. I don't want to compete. I'm asking you as a man, not a sniveling punk, to knock it off because this is my blog and I feel it lowers the quality of the discourse.
And notice how even in this you shirk responsibility. You can't help yourself because I'm so deserving of the names you use and worse even. It's bullshit, Kurt. You do it because you like bullying people, that's my guess, but whatever the real reason, cut it out please.
He tried to sell a rifle with a grip on it? Whew, that was a close call. Someone could have been able to hold it.
ReplyDeleteAnd would someone please tell us what his having been a "war hero" has to do with it. . . . In this case he sounds like a true hero, having been seriously wounded and risking further injury to save fellow Marines, but I ask again, what does that have to do with anything?
ReplyDeleteLet's imagine that the alleged "criminal's" history was not that of a hero, but of something horrid--say child molester. Would that have nothing to do with it, too? In other words, would evil in the accused's history also be irrelevant, or is it only press reports of an alleged "gun criminal's" heroism that makes you whine like the sniveling, cowardly little punk that you are?
With all due respect.
That would be none.
Wrongdoing in his past would also be irrelevant. He sold a gun to someone who identified himself as a disqualified person. That's a crime regardless of who you are. And that has nothing to do with the Safe Act.
DeleteCharacter witnesses are neither new nor rare in criminal cases. The fact that he is a war hero speaks well of his character, and is thus a very sensible point to make.
DeleteGranted, the Buffalo News is not part of Mr. Wassell's legal team, but if you don't think the war hero history of the accused is newsworthy, or of interest to readers, you're an even bigger idiot than I had thought, which is nearly impossible to imagine. I'm chuckling as I picture the reporter's editor's reaction, if that history had been left out of the story.
Finally, what's up with this idiotic shit:
The worst thing about this case is the failure to take responsibility for his actions. It's not his fault, it's never his fault.
In the entire article, I can find him quoted only once:
I can’t speak about the case.
How is that "shirking responsibility," and passing the blame for anything?
You're right, there's nothing in there to say he's not taking full responsibility for his actions. It's guys like you who keep talking about how bad laws make criminals out of good guys.
DeleteWithout evil, unjust laws, there would be no moral obligation to be a lawbreaker.
DeleteGrow up, you whining, petulant child.
By the way, if you don't like "former-military guys wearing their war wounds like a crown," what's your position on wounded "gun control" advocates use of their wounds as implying some kind of authority on their part? Do Colin Goddard's four bullet wounds grant him expertise in the Constitution, or in self-defense?
ReplyDeleteHow about Gabrielle Giffords--does the fact that she suffers from severe brain damage enhance her authority to dictate what size magazines people can own, or what kinds of guns? I know severe brain damage is useful in creating a "gun control" advocate, but for choosing people who determine public policy, shouldn't we look for healthy brains, rather than severely damaged ones?
Yes, I think they do. Goddard and Giffords were shot as a direct result of the loose gun laws in the US. Therefore they are better qualified to talk about it.
DeleteWar heroes, on the other hand, would have no more insight into the gun debate than a heroic fireman or a really good teacher.
Translation: Character references and personal history only matter when Mikeb says they do.
DeleteHey, Mikeb--about your made-up term "pro-gun liars." Wanna talk about a liar? How about that sack-of-subhumanity of a president of the Democrats claiming that the gun used at Sandy Hook was "fully automatic" (emphasis added):
ReplyDeleteI just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”
See the difference between your mythical "pro-gun liars," and a real liar? The real liar is the guy who isn't telling the truth.
Time to recall that asshole. By whatever means necessary.
That's not a lie, Kurt. That's the result of ignorance on his part and stupidity on the part of his advisors who allowed him to mis-speak.
DeleteThat's the result of ignorance on his part and stupidity on the part of his advisors who allowed him to mis-speak.
DeleteOh, come on. You're saying that a highly educated and (theoretically) intelligent man who has been obsessed with gun laws for decades, and has been especially active in efforts to ban semi-automatic firearms, doesn't know the difference between semi- and fully-automatic? That he has been trying to impose oppressive restrictions on something he misunderstands that fundamentally? What does that say about his suitability for the high office he holds?
And the "stupidity" of his advisors--presidents don't have advisors forced on them. If he can't be trusted to choose intelligent (or at least non-stupid) ones, then again, what does that say about his suitability for his office?
You're as monomaniacal as Captain Ahab.
Delete"What does that say about his suitability for the high office he holds?"
You really think everything's about guns.
You really think everything's about guns.
DeleteAnother obvious falsehood (the polite word--you know what a stickler for politeness I am--for "lie"). I don't at all "think everything is about guns." I do, however, think that claiming that semi-automatic guns are fully-automatic guns is about, well . . . guns.
I'm funny that way.
What you said, or inferred, that indicated your obsession with guns is that a president who doesn't know the different between semi- and fullly-automatic is not fit for office.
DeleteGiven the fact, herbivore, of his obsession with banning semi-automatic firearms--yes, if he is truly too stupid to know the difference with regard to something this important to him, he is unfit for office. He is certainly qualified for blogging idiotically about how icky guns and gun owners are, and arguing that people with ragged fingernails are unfit for gun ownership.
Delete