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 ...
He had an expired Florida permit. Never valid in NY.
I meant the second half isn't absolute because the first half modifies the second half.
There is more than the 2nd in this discussion. It is also about how the stars get away with stuff that the average person cannot get away with. FB thought he was above the law. S does not think he is above the law.
It wasn't hypocritical. If caught, I would have plead guilty
People sometimes let their personal dislikes color their feelings on separate issues.
IMO, whether or not Ol’ Ben was a good QB or not had nothing to do with how I view his accident. He was inexperienced and in over his head.
And by the same token (is that a racist term?) I don’t care if it was Burris, TO, Ray Lewis, or Tom Brady that had an AD in a nightclub in NYC. AD’s are preventable and permits are unconstitutional.
I asked what other Constitutionally protected Right required a permit. You responded running a business. Apples and oranges. As I pointed out.
Nor can a local permit over-ride Art 6 Para 2, the 2nd, and the 10th.
Keep and Bear. Shall not be infringed.
Not "shall not be infringed except at a local level by requiring a license".
Er... not my "opinion". The exact language of the Constitution. Sorry you don't agree with the very document that gives our government any power at all.
"Shall not be infringed" is poorly written? No wonder you are having troubles if your reading level is pre-Kindergarten.
Nothing. So why did you bring it up?
I was not commenting on the validity of the permit law, just that it was there and enforced at the local level. Violate it and you go to jail unless you have the right connection.
I didn't bring it up.
If the second half was all there was, we wouldn't have a dispute
There’s a fine line between thinking oneself to be above the law and one violating a stupid/unConstitutional law.
I don’t think Burris ever though he could walk away from a bust, just don’t think he even considered he’d be busted.
I don’t think that any of us say that the speed limit doesn’t apply to us and we should justly walk if busted but rather that maybe the limit is improper or we are just in denial about our chances of being caught.
Laws are designed for A) those who don’t know how to act without strict rules; B) for a way to punish people who don’t know how to act without strict rules!
It is those who cannot live by common sense and courtesy that bring down volumes of rules for the rest of us...and most of us don’t need the rules!
But I would hope you would agree that they are being enforced at the local level and if enforced, should be enforced without prejudice?
You can keep them for your own purposes and carry/bear them with you. Further, the language explicitly states that this "shall not be infringed". Being required to get a State or City license before exercising said Right is a pretty big "infringement" with zero legitimacy in our Republic.
Especially with Art 6 para 2, the 10th Amendment, and Title 18 sect 241/242 in place as further safeguards against government asshattery. The fact that we let them get away with this garbage is our shame, but it doesn't lend the laws legitimacy.
People thought the world was flat for thousands of years. They were wrong. People think the government has a "legitimate power" to infringe on RKBA. They are equally as wrong.
Cool for them as this was the Debate in Elliot's 1st and 2nd Congress as well.
I'm Right. You and Bloomberg are wrong.
He thought he was above the law and his status would allow him to walk away from any problems. He and others worked all morning to keep this from coming down on him. A hospital is embarrassed, a doctor is suspended, the Giants organization is hedging and is embarrassed, a team mate is on the bubble and the night club is being investigated.
You’re acting like a troll with your distorted view of the Second Amendment.
The Liberals are the ones that have a differing interpretation of the Constitution. You don’t want to accuse us of being Liberals.
Does it mean NOTHING then? Are there no limits to what Congress or state legislatures can do?
If there are no limits, then why did our Founders bother including it along with freedom of the press and requirements for warrants?
Unless you believe that there are no limits on what Congress can do with regard to arms, tell me something that you know they cannot outlaw.
I love it when people get called trolls simply because they disagree.
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.