Posted on 07/20/2004 1:11:48 PM PDT by pabianice
A retired New York City police officer shot and killed a potential carjacker yesterday afternoon and may have wounded a second assailant on the Haynes Avenue bridge in Newark, police said.
The 58-year-old former officer, whose name was not released, was cut off by a dark-colored Jeep at 12:45 p.m., forcing him to stop on the bridge, police said. Two gunmen ran from the Jeep and ordered the man from his silver Cadillac, according to Lt. Derek Glenn, a Newark police spokesman.
The former officer, who retired in 1982 and now works in private security, complied and moved behind the car while a third man emerged from the Jeep to take the driver's seat of the Cadillac, Glenn said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Article IV. Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
--------------------------------------------------
I hope this guy fights it.
A tad off topic, but notice how every paragraph after the second one and before the last two contains the phrase "Glenn said"?
The carjackers have killed enough people in NJ. Time they got some back. Just read about a storekeeper beaten to death. Robbers who murder deserve to die.
MRs VS
The City should reinburse him for his bullets
Actually, he should use the Chineese approach and demand from the dead car-jackers family that they reimburse him for the cost of the bullets, since they did not take responsibility on controlling their relative.
A good guy shoots two bad guys, killing one of them, and NJ prosecutes for possessing an "illegal" gun. My bet is he walks, though, being a former Lord.
What's a Lord?
Don't tell me - you flunked out of Law School, didn't you?
There is no full faith and credit concern here. Not even close.
FOR
"who has a permit for his weapon in New York"
Try,
Was married to his long time companion in NY,
What did I miss?
Yeah I know, I know, but wait for it, sauce for the goose etc.
Not at all.
If Bush/Ashcroft had any backbone, they'd have federal agents charge the arresting "officers" here with violating the civil Rights of the gentleman from New York.
No doubt about it, but he still has the Right to self-defense and the Right to bear arms.
Any government that infringes upon those basic Rights is totally illegitimate.
So gay marriages executed in one state are expected to be honored by other states because of the full faith and credit clause, but gun permits aren't?
Yes, that's exactly what will happen when the legality of the DoMA is challenged.
So what's different from a driver's license being honored in all states vs. a gun permit? Why are gun permits an exception? I don't see it as an exception anywhere in the Constitution or amendments.
I'm being serious BTW, there may be a legitimate legal reason as to why, and I'd like to know what it is if indeed there is one.
The Full Faith & Credit clause was primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings.
Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.
A gun permit says that you have the legal right to own (and sometimes carry) a gun IN THE JURISDICTION where it is issued. If you carry the gun into another state (another jurisdiction), they won't charge you with violating the terms of the other state's permit. They will charge you with violating their state laws by carrying the gun in their jurisdiction without legal authority to do so.
The custom has been that a married couple in one jurisdiction doesn't suddenly become 'unmarried' when they cross their home state's borders. That makes a lot of sense, to be fair - the new jurisdiction doesn't mandate that they get married again.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions."
If Scalia's dissentiing opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.
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.