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 ...
In your links conclusion this seems to be similar to what Soliton has posted.
The precise scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee, however, and its proper application in a world that has changed enormously since 1791, cannot be determined solely by reference to the Constitution’s text and history. Subsequent developments in the technology of weapons and in military technique have rendered the armed citizen wholly impractical as a substitute for standing armies and much less potent as a deterrent to despotism. At the same time, the increased destructive potential of small arms has raised new questions about the type of “arms” that may appropriately be left in civilian hands and about the regulations that may constitutionally be imposed on civilians’ use of their weapons. These questions will assume real importance if the Supreme Court takes up the Second Amendment with the same serious attention that it has given to the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Your arguments are pre heller in a bad way. The ussc has found the 2nd doesn’t say what you say
Not true. Most famous and/or wealthy people who want permits get them here.
Also, for someone who’s been the subject of multiple domestic dispute calls to the police, I wouldn’t exactly argue against him being a thug.
This is a second argument. One that has been proven false time and again.
George Mason said it best to debunk this one:
There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law.
Since George is given credit for penning the Second, we'll go with his interpretation of what he meant:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Then again, Albert Gallatin said it well too:
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
What arguments. Dead Corpse posted the link to my quotes. I am asking his opinion of the quotes since it is his source given to us to explain his position. Do you have an opinion?
NYCs Gun Law is Unconstitutional.
As is California’s.
So?
What are we going to do about it?
Hoplophobic? On my crowded desk in front of me is a busted pair of grips to a .38 special (I am carving new ones from pecan wood) and a CETME bayonet. (I carved a bayonet lug onto a walking stick for a marine cousin-in-law as a surprise for Christmas). I have a M1 leaning against the wall and some kind of cheap nylon semiauto .22 here too. My collection is upstairs. I have been hunting for 46 years and started by shooting a squirrel with a .22 when I was 5. I've hunted alone since I was 11. I got my first shotgun when I was 12. My daughter was captain of the rifle team. My wife just took second place (due to a good handicap) at the municipal gun club, and my son got a Kimber .45 for graduation. I have a C&R license too.
Yeah, I have a fear of weapons.
Touche'
And if the Congress passes an unConstitutional Law, the President signs it, and the courts uphold it, even though it still blatantly violates the Constitution?
That is where we are at now... Using the system to fix the system is no longer possible. Even Heller hasn't had much of an effect as this case against Plaxico gives evidence of.
Does this mean that the link you gave should not be used as a ‘primer’ for understanding the 2nd?
Do what your ancestors did-LEAVE. Go find a better country where you can hang grenades around your neck and carry an AK in the streets. Pakistan is nice this time of year.
As I stated to another poster, this attitude is a "free for me but not for thee" attitude.
Abiding by laws legally passed presupposes those laws are based off the Supreme Law. Gun control laws are almost universally unConstitutional.
Must be considered to do what? Reverse a decision you already made? Does this mean you empower your executor to take back the car because your sone is unemployed?
The important point is that the decision has been made. To make a different decision, for any reason whatever, requires an amendment to the original decision. We know how to do that in the case of the Constitution. And it isn't easy to do for the very good reason that our Founders felt confident that they understood the issues.
There are those who mistakenly assert that the existence of our standing military forces eliminates the need for a "well-regulated Militia" and thus eliminates any purpose for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those people are about as ignorant as one can imagine regarding the challenges faced by our Founders and their abject fear of standing armies.
Please tell me under what circumstances the Congress may infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
I'm afraid of lots of people being armed. Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have children. Some people shouldn't be allowed near guns. Unfortunately I don't trust government to decide who.
You sound a little unsteady if I may say so
If you worked here for that long, you must have spent at least some time in the subways, especially during rush hour. And if that is so, do you believe that it would be a good idea or a bad idea to have lots of people carrying in packed-to-the-gills subways cars?
No, the important point is that someone has to decipher my intentions
Please tell me under what circumstances the Congress may infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Right now you can't own a grenade or landmine or automatic weapon without a special license
Some of us have ancestors who didn't LEAVE, they took up arms and established a nation in defiance of a tyrant. If you haven't read the Declaration of Independence lately, I suggest that you do. The Constitution is their solution to the problems they faced and overcame.
As for the Heller decision, the process is only just starting. The Heller Court was virtually silent on what it means to "bear arms", as opposed to just keeping them in our homes. New York's laws stand no chance whatever of surviving a challenge based on Heller. The only risk is that Obama will load the Court with people who can't understand "shall not be infringed".
Just as a reality check, tell me one thing that Congress may not forbid because of the Second Amendment.
_________________________________________________
Nope, not in NYC. The gun law is the gun law. Everybody pays.
So you are a "native" American. My ancestors left Ireland and England.
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.