Posted on 12/04/2008 5:34:20 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
New York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.
Plaxico Burress is led to his arraignment in Manhattan. To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun. But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City's draconian gun laws.
Mr. Burress had previously had a handgun carry permit issued by Florida, for which he was required to pass a fingerprint-based background check. As a player for the Giants, he moved to Totowa, N.J., where he kept a Glock pistol. And last Friday night, he reportedly went to the Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants. Because New York state permits to possess or carry handguns are not issued to nonresidents, Mr. Burress could not apply for a New York City permit.
At the nightclub, the handgun accidentally discharged, shooting Mr. Burress in the right thigh. He was not seriously injured, but he has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
How do you get to federal licenses. We were talking about local (city) permits.
Ok so not racist but seems then your view is definitely slanted by personal dislike.
I really don’t care what kind of jerk he may be, he has 2A rights (and responsibilities) just like the rest of us.
But you still haven’t answered my earlier question:
If guns are banned in your area and required to be turned in, are you going to comply?
Yes or no.
What does a local permit have to due with a Constitutionally protected Right? If it didn’t fit, why did you bring it up? Do you honestly mean to sit there and say that a mere local law can over-ride a Constitutionally protected Right?
"Free for me but not for thee". Typical Nanny Stater mentality.
sheesh... We need an edit function.
While the trooper may not be beyond reproach the husband/driver isn’t either. He’s had six speeding tickets in the past 20 years, not counting warnings and other driving infractions. No wonder the trooper thought the guy was lying.
I didn't bring it up. I responded to another that was referring to the constitutionality of a local gun permit.
Do you honestly mean to sit there and say that a mere local law can over-ride a Constitutionally protected Right?
What are you smoking? I never posted anything of the sort.
I know. Your opinion means more than the law and we shouldn't obey laws that, in your opinion, are unconstitutional. Never mind that the Constitution provides a democratic remedy for amending itself. The second amendment was very poorly written. That is why people are still arguing over what it means. Why not push for an amendment that says "anybody can carry any gun anywhere for any reason"? There would then be no argument.
Nope.
He was one dum sumbich even though the accident may not have been (totally) his fault and anything less than a full face helmet would not have helped him.
He had and extremely powerful bike, was not a skilled rider....didn't even have a license! I seriously doubt he knew how to ride any bike safely let alone that one and strongly believe better skills on his part could have prevented the collision.
Now if you can make a case why that is pertinent to the 2A discussion I'll be glad to listen. or read.
EXACTLY!
They forget that parts of the Bill of Rights are designed for the accused AND convicted!
Just adding that there was a lot of bashing of R on these threads when he had his accident. Not limited to just black players although black players have more of an image problem they should be working on.
Irrelevant.
What does a local permit have to due with a Constitutionally protected Right?
I had to drive through Baltimore and near DC when there was a problem with people being shot at rest areas. I had my carry pistol with me at every rest stop even though my permit wasn't valid in Maryland. I did this to protect my family.
I made a decision that I could live with going to jail more than watch my wife and kids get killed. I didn't, however, ever think that the law didn't apply to me.
did u see this? good read, even if it’s a little over the top.
And you would support that? Really?
Polish it up a bit to proclude criminal use and to include "arms" not just guns and we might be on the right track.
FYI, I'm a 2A radical. I don't believe that felons should automatically lose their 2A rights. IMO once a convict serves his sentence he gets his Constututionally protected rights fully restored. I assume that criminals that want guns have them despite the law and that the law is a burden only for those inclined to observe it.
So just get rid of the nonsense and let adults have their rights with the assumption of responsibility instead of the government assuming that its citizens are servants and dolts.
The fact that I agree with what you did in now way lessens the fact that you are a hypocrite!
The Second Amendment is not absolute? Please explain your rationale behind that statement.
Because NYC is a special place. People who question the validity of the CCW laws in NYC underestimate the stupidity of large percentages of its population. The law is designed with places like Latin Quarter in mind. There was a reason why every cowboy had to check his guns when he rode into Tombstone, and it applies to places like NYC. When I lived in NYC, I had a gun in my apartment, though I was never robbed. I never carried it on the street with me, because I wouldn't have had time to pull it if I was jumped. Meahwhile, without good people carrying concealed weapons is the safest big city in America. Yes we, have a Constitutional right to bear arms. But it's not a black and white issue. And gun advocates who refuse logic in favor of winning every point sound a lot like abortion advocates when they argue for partial birth abortion or against parental notification. All they succeed in doing is turning off the majority of people who are somewhere in the middle.
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.