Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Plaxico Buress (NYCs Gun Law is Unconstitutional)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 4, 2008 | David B. Kopel

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: New York
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunban; newyork; plaxicoburess; rapeofliberty; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-398 next last
To: Eagle Eye
Uh...that comes from the Declaration not Constitution.

Of course it does. What's your point?

81 posted on 12/04/2008 7:07:24 AM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

No, he’s in trouble because he not only carried a gun, but stupidly shot himself with it and then attempted to cover it all up.

This punk is the reason we wind up with gun bans in the first place, irresponsible thug who put everyone around him at risk because he doesn’t have the mental capacity to treat a gun with respect and winds up hurting himself or others.


82 posted on 12/04/2008 7:07:32 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"The Constitution does not, however, give you, as an individual, the right to interpret it".

The constitution was written in plain english. Anyone can read it and see what it means. If one didn't understand something there was enough written about virtually every part of the constitution, by it's authors, that it is simple to determine what the intent was. By saying that the constitution needs to be "interpreted" you are inferring that the primary founding document of our nation, the highest law of the land, from which all just laws should be derived, the document that dictates what powers belong to government, is changeable based on the whims of whomever has the "right" to interpret it.
83 posted on 12/04/2008 7:12:51 AM PST by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
but you can always stand on principal

And we can see that you boldly do NOT stand on principle (not standing on the person who runs a school...a principal!)

Guys like you would tell Paul Revere to be quiet and turned your back on the Boston Tea Party participants for polluting the harbor!

Ok, so you don't like the guy...he has a right to keep and bear arms regardless of what state he is in....NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights limits enumerated rights to ones state of residence. Nothing, and no resonable interpretation suggests that.

Interesting that you slam a guy for his interprtation which is very widely accepted and then you offer yours as truth which is quite narrow and uncommon. Hypocritical if you ask me.

84 posted on 12/04/2008 7:13:48 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

If you are going to challenge the constitutionality of a law you need to pick your case carefully.


85 posted on 12/04/2008 7:14:14 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The word, by the way, is "unalienable", not "inalienable". You do not determine what the constitution means

Seems to me that you're ascribing the word unalienable to the wrong document.

A minor mistake among the ones you've made today on this thread.

86 posted on 12/04/2008 7:15:59 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 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. ‘

I fully support the second amendment, but this is simplistic in the extreme.

There is a heck of a lot more to the story of Plaxico Burress related to his ruining his NFL career. This incident is just the latest example.


87 posted on 12/04/2008 7:18:55 AM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

A big fan of the Constitution, I see.


88 posted on 12/04/2008 7:19:07 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("I love democracy. I love Free Republic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

bttt


89 posted on 12/04/2008 7:19:28 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Long Island Pete

bttt


90 posted on 12/04/2008 7:20:14 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Go back and check my punctuation. I never claimed that “unalienable rights” was in the Constitution, just that you used the wrong word. I then made the point that the Constitution does not give individuals the legal right to interpret it for legal reasons. Individuals do not make laws; we elect legislators to do that for us. Voting determins our laws. Conservatives obey the law, but work to change the ones they disagree with. We do this by voting for the right people, or when we have standing, sue.


91 posted on 12/04/2008 7:21:04 AM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Firearms have long been a fashion accessory and when the 2A says “...shall not be infringed” there is no language there that says ‘except in case of fashion accessory’.

Men and women have carried all kinds of knives and guns that were as much or more fashion statement than functional weapon and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The Constitution doesn’t limit individual rights in any way.


92 posted on 12/04/2008 7:22:08 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
A big fan of the Constitution, I see.

I am. I just understand it. That's all.

93 posted on 12/04/2008 7:22:16 AM PST by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Conservatives obey the law, but work to change the ones they disagree with.

Are you saying that if your state bans guns and demands turn in that you will do that?

Yes or no.

You gonna obey the law then try to change it as you just said or not?

94 posted on 12/04/2008 7:24:20 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"I am. I just understand it. That's all.

You have offered no evidence at all that you understand even the basic precepts of the constitution.
95 posted on 12/04/2008 7:26:37 AM PST by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

From the context it is clear that is what you meant.

That’s ok, it was just a minor boo-boo that anyone could make but with the abundance of absurdity in your other posts today I couldn’t help nit picking and piling on.


96 posted on 12/04/2008 7:32:42 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Jury nullification is the theory where a given jury believes the defendant in a criminal case is guilty, but acquits them anyway because of the bad law/unconstitutionality/unfairness/gender-or-race-related reasons/you name reason here. At times defense attorneys try to use this as a strategy.

The most recent famous example of this was the OJ Simpson case.


97 posted on 12/04/2008 7:35:14 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("I love democracy. I love Free Republic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
New York City ain't America, pal.

Yep....hasn't been for a very long time.

98 posted on 12/04/2008 7:36:08 AM PST by Ouderkirk (Never underestimate the ability of a liberal to deny reality and attempt to change the rules to do s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
I wonder how many other “ gang bangers “ were present in the club carrying illegally ?

Probably none, from the press reports I've been following on this incident. Apparently the club has a metal detector, like the type you pass thru at airport security.

Plax indicated to one of the clubs security guards he was carrying, whereupon the guard called the manager, who pulled Plax aside and ALLOWED him in. Apparently Plax the fool had an AD sometime then, when the gun slid from his waistband.

The ironies here are fantastic to me, an ex-NYer. First, the celebrity-worship culture -- the club let Plax in. Second, the news now coming out that only celebs in NYC manage to get carry permits (though not Plax), and little people are left to fend for themselves. Third, Bloomberg - the gun banning emperor of NY --screaming to high heaven for maximum punishment before the case has even gone to trial, and I hope, in the process poisoning any future jury.

99 posted on 12/04/2008 7:36:12 AM PST by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

About the only thing he should be charged with is “attempted terminal stupidity”.


100 posted on 12/04/2008 7:40:57 AM PST by Sigurdrifta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-398 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson