Should Gun Rights be Reciprocal Among States? Tenn. Women Arrested in NYC for Carrying Legal Gun

REASON ^ | 12/30/2011 | Nick Gillespie

[SeekAndFind]

The New York Post (founded by Alexander Hamilton, but don't hold that against the current version) reports on the strange case of Meredith Graves, a 39-year-old medical student and nurse from Tennessee who was arrested for illegally carrying - and voluntarily surrendering - a gun at Manhattan's 9/11 Memorial. Graves is licensed to carry in Tennessee and was in New York for a job interview, reports the Post, when she and her husband visited the memorial. Upon seeing a sign saying no weapons allowed, says the Post, she realized she was carrying a .32 caliber pistol and inquired about how to declare it:

When she got to that section, she asked another cop, “We have this gun — can we check it in here? We [my husband and I] are not law-enforcement.”

That’s when she was arrested.

Graves, who has a full legal carry permit in Tennessee, was locked up on a weapons-possession charge and held on $2,000 bond that she posted yesterday. She is due in court on March 19.

She’ll soon find out exactly how serious New York City is about illegal guns. The Manhattan DA’s Office is pursuing a conviction on felony gun possession — carrying a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years....

The Post quotes her mother making the case that gun rights should not be subject to state infringements:

“You’d think states would reciprocate with the Second Amendment. She has a license to carry in Tennessee,” said her mother-in-law, who lives in Manchester, NJ.

Bonus anonymous Volunteer State voice whose opinion of New York probably couldn't have gotten any lower anyhow:

“Everyone down there carries, and she just forgot,” said the woman, who would not give her name. “She was being honest, and this is the treatment they give innocent people.”

The Post notes that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has made a huge push against illegal guns in the city.

Whole story here.

So what do you think, kind readers? While I think most reasonable people would agree that prosecuting such a case is a monumental waste of law enforcement resources, what about the case for reciprocity in gun laws? Assuming New York's and the city's laws pass constitutional muster, isn't this just one more case of respecting local differences (ironically, that sort of federalist-localist claim is more typically associated with the South than New Yawk City)?

If every place in America is forced to be just like every other place when it comes all laws and regulation and taxes and collective bargaining and trans fat and this and that (including gay marriage, come to think of it), isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? Or should the standard for gun rights and many other things (free speech, religious liberty, not having to quarter soldiers, etc.) ultimately be set at the highest level possible? What do you think is the way to decide which rights get special protection and which ones don't?

[Alberta's Child]

If she really wants to make a high-profile case of this, I think she should post bail, return home to Tennessee, and never set foot in that sh!t-hole known as New York City again.

Put the burden of determining state jurisdictions on them and let NYC law enforcement figure out how to get her back to stand trial.

[sean_og]

But Chris Christy King of the RINO’s would never let that happen!

[OldPossum]

they through him in jail?

Now, there's an interesting misspelling. The verb here is "threw."

[DaveyB]

The second amendment principle is that the government should fear the people more than the people fear the government. This was thought the best manner to keep the government behaving in the best interests of the people and stay off corruption. Perhaps this is why the most corrupt places in the country have the strictest gun laws.

Rule of thumb: If the police are carrying, then the people can carry. Keeps the police in line and gives the people the tools to defend themselves. Police are good at writing traffic tickets and filing paperwork, not so good at defending, for that task a well armed citizenry is the best option.

[CapnJack]

I could see something like this being a good case to bring to the US Supreme Court at some point.

[moose-matson]

Sorry, anybody who carries on a regular basis and “forgets” he is armed shouldn’t be carrying at all. And, yes, I do carry and I am trained.

[William Tell]

KrisKrinkle said: The "...right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." is not an inalienable right.

How did you determine this?

I don't agree. The right to a speedy trial is little different from the right to defend yourself if attacked. An unjustified charge of criminality deprives one of the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If an attacker attempts to deprive you of your life, you have an inalienable right to defend yourself.

If the attacker happens to be the state, we artificially allow the state to prepare a speedy trial. Failing to do so makes the state indistinguishable from any other attacker.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It sucks that she will most likely do time for this.

The judge should take intention and motivation into account.

3/12 years is too harsh for a mistake like that.

[ontap]

I should have been more specific in that I was speaking of the political leaders and the ones who elect them. Who else would even consider prosecuting these people?

[brityank]

Here's a site illustrating the 16 States that have reciprocity with New York:

North Carolina is one of those States - but as others have noted, the City does not follow State laws. If she does push it into the federal courts it could be the undoing of Bloomberg and his sycophants. (I won't hold my breath!)

[KrisKrinkle]

“How did you determine this?”

By equating inalienable rights with natural rights. There are different kinds of rights to wit: natural, civil, political, religious, personal, public, etc. Natural rights are those we would have in a state of nature, absent an organized society.

The “...right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...” can not exist in a state of nature absent an organized society. It takes an organized society to establish procedures for a speedy and public trial, establish States and districts, and establish crimes. Different societies may do all that differently. Once a society has done all that, they could change some of it.

“The right to a speedy trial is little different from the right to defend yourself if attacked.”

Absent an organized society I still have a natural right to defend myself. Absent an organized society I don’t see how I could have any right to a speedy trial. Who would try me? By what procedures? Who would compel them to do so? Who would establish that whatever I did had the status of a crime necessitating a trial?

“If the attacker happens to be the state, we artificially allow the state to prepare a speedy trial.”

“Artificially” is the key word. It springs from society or the state. It’s not something that is natural.

[Cold Heart]

My dyslexia kicks in once in awhile but is usually missed by most fude critics:)

[Cold Heart]

They aren’t forgetting they are armed. What they are doing is not paying attention to situational awareness of crossing imaginary lines.

[roadcat]

Who here has ever been out and suddenly "realized" that he was carrying a sidearm? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

I feel bad for the woman, she is not a criminal except for stupid N.Y. thugs treating her as one (if she were an illegal or muslim they probably wouldn't bother her). We all have our Bueller moments. One time years ago, I went through the metal detector at our Hall of Justice (San Francisco Police headquarters, Sheriffs' jail, court facilities), after safely going through I realized I was carrying a large folded pocket knife. Yikes, something wrong with the metal detector. I then promptly left the building. Stupid is one thing; drawing attention to it is worse.

[Oatka]

If its concealed, keep it concealed. If they are searching bags or running you through detectors, get out of line and walk away. Carry a knife too, so if anyone asks you why you got out of line tell them that you realized you have a pocket knife and you need to put in back in the car.

Thank you. Advice I will now put into action.

[panaxanax]

“The judge should take intention and motivation into account.”

I agree, but don’t forget this is Bloomberg’s city and he owns the judges. They will enforce his anti-gun agenda and use this lady as an example.

[Frank_2001]

“The SC has ruled that states can restrict firearm ownership.”

Did they address the issue of what happens when the restrictions are so onerous that they effectively nullify the Second Amendment? (only retired police officers and a handful of very rich, well-connected citizens wind up actually being issued a license, everyone else gets turned down)

[The Schnoid from Sheboygan]

If I recall correctly, liberals want to cram so-called “gay marriage” down everyone’s throat (...and, please, no wise cracks about that metaphor) by requiring all states to recognize gay “marriages” performed in some left-wing state. In other words, if California allows two homosexuals to get “married”, liberals want to require all other states in the country to grant recognition of that “marriage” under the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution.

Okay, then on the same basis, all states should be required to recognize a legal gun carry permit that a state like Tennessee issues.

So, how ‘bout it, liberals?

[Red in Blue PA]

You nailed it. States rights can never trump the Constitution, yet many on the right argue for this when it comes to guns.

[Red in Blue PA]

You must not carry every day. I do.

Pants. Wallet, watch, cell phone, gun.

Every day.