-j
sh
s)adj.
1. Characterized by extremely brutal or cruel crimes; vicious.
2. Infamous; scandalous: "That remorseless government persisted in its flagitious project" Robert Southey.
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 ...
Congress? You again jump back to the federal level. We were discussing local permits, particularly NYC.
What have YOU been doing?
WHAT is "the system"? That Congress can do whatever it likes? Or that the Supreme Court will exercise judicial review of legislation based upon passages in the Constitution?
It is the anti-gun liberals who are changing the system because they don't like it, and they are ignoring the Constitution.
I have read that about one-third of the people in 1775 in what became the U.S. supported the insurrection. About one-third supported the existing government. And about one-third wished they could maintain neutrality.
If the numbers reach those levels in our lifetimes, then we may well suffer another Revolution. I will be on the side of maintaining the Constitution, as amended. Some will be on the side of those who support a Supreme Court which does not make their judicial rulings based on the Constitution.
Which side will you be on?
Ask dead corpse. His post had a founder quote that said the second amendment would be used to put down insurrection. Everybody will be shooting at everybody. I will be shooting at people who threaten my home and family. My old M1 with steel core FMJs will shoot through their cars and kevlar and really piss them off. I don't think it will ever come to that though. Sites like this attract nutjobs just like Kos does. They spit and fume from mamma's basement, but do nothing.
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
In support of the petition drives, I organized a group of volunteers to print and distribute petition forms and collect signatures.
Aside from that, I support candidates when I can find them who support my rights. I exercise my rights to the utmost consistent with staying out of jail.
I hold about half a dozen concealed carry permits and carry in those states where I am safe from imprisonment. I had planned to challenge my local sheriff regarding the issuance of a concealed carry permit. The rapid progress of Heller has delayed any action in that realm. "Incorporation" of the Second Amendment appears to be just around the corner.
My family are almost all life members of the NRA and I have life memberships in most of the other recognized groups. I also donated to the Cato Institute, though the funding for Heller appears to have been from private sources.
What would you suggest?
I was looking for ideas. My home base is Florida but I now reside in CA. Seems like there is no active, organized effort in CA like in FL and other states.
Actually, I am biding my time. Expect to retire to either TX or FL in about two years.
Actually, it's just the opposite.
Then again, how often does it happen?
Often enough. Or are crime stats wrong?
All the evidence I need is to look at what is the safest big city in this country.
So other crimes are down, but your murder rate is up. Feel safer?
Most of the decrease in New York came from a drop in property crimes -- violent crime dropped only 3.3 percent.
Which was lower than the National drop which was 4.3%.
And there you have it. You obey the law out of fear of imprisonment even when it comes to the holy second amendment.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
You just outed yourself as a pro-gun control troll.
I'm sure that is how many viewed the earliest activists prior to our Revolution. I wouldn't let the fact that it happened over two hundred years ago convince you that it can't happen again.
The anti-gunners were peeing their pants over the possibility that some anti-gun former prosecutor in the north-west was assassinated over his anti-gun stance.
What legitimate use do you have for your M1? Will you obey Congressional mandate to turn it in to a central armory for safe-keeping?
I withdrew my consent to be governed over the infringements to my right to keep and bear arms. So far I haven't had to break any laws. But I am not ethically bound to obey them due to the infringements. Are you ethically bound to obey the laws? Or do you only obey them because of the threat of punishment? Do you think it makes a difference?
flagitious?
I’ve been in jam packed subways.
As far as I’m concerned, any law abiding person should have the right to carry. I don’t think the commuters would start shooting at each other if someone brushed into them. No more than people up here would start shooting in a road rage incident, or if someone stole their parking space, etc. People who go thru the trouble to get the CCW are not the ones I worry about, and some of the criminals on the subways are already carrying. Besides, not everyone would choose to carry, probably only a minority, just like in “shall issue” states.
I rode the LIRR too, when Colin Ferguson had his little racist shooting fit. I bet lives would have been saved if there were a few people who had carry permits.
I understand your point, but I think the argument goes both ways.
Since I didn't post what you posted as my posting, I have no idea what you are talking about!
I hate that one. Has no one ever read the actual TEXT of the legislation that was passed around to the States for ratification?
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
It states right in the article that once ratified it is "as part of the said Constitution". How much more clear does it need to be? Untold decades of government stupidity could have been avoided if just ONE court had bothered to read it's own damn documentation.
Art 6 para 2 states clearly...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This doesn't require a law degree to understand. It doesn't require some black robed judge to interpret this for us lowly peons.
Past due time to put the genie back into the bottle.
That sounds just like a banner's argument. How many incidents of legal CCW holders getting into a silly argument, or a road rage incident, etc. that decide to brandish. They know that would get their permit yanked lickedy split, result in an arrest, and cost them legal fees. I think people who carry are less likely to get into an altercation, and will even back down and walk away.
You selectively snipped one part of Rawles comment, and completely ignored the conclusion.
-jshs)I got it from the Civillian Marksmanship Program FROM the government. Why are you so sure they want it back? Calm down, no one is out to get you!
Of course, I am a conservative.
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.