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 ...
I snipped from your quote. Going to the source, I see that you selectively snipped ignoring the conclusion.
It's an assault weapon. Next AWB passes the Democrat controlled Congress, it'll be time to "put up, or shut up".
And yeah, they are out to get you. Or do you think the history of the BATFE will be magically transformed because you agree with their arbitrary and capricious laws?
You are the one living in a fantasy world apparently...
I and many other concealed carriers have spent a fair amount of time in crowds without feeling the need to start shooting.
As a NY refugee, I've seen a tendancy in other Northeastern city folk to feel that the simple act of strapping on a weapon magically turns a good citizen into a bloodthirsty killer. I hope you don't think that New Yorkers lack the impulse control necessary to legally carry a firearm.
The truth as I've seen it is quite the opposite: legal carriers tend to steer clear of sketchy places and walk away from silly confrontations rather than escalate a problem. The weight you feel on your belt all day long is a reminder of the extra responsibilities you carry.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.[Volume 5, Page 214]
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. 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.
In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
Doesn't support your contention. Sorry...
I have a license to purchase vintage weapons online from the BATFE. It costs $30. I don't even have to go through a background check for the purchases.
I certainly don't like the "selective incorporation" term used to describe the glacially slow fashion in which the Supreme Court has been restricting the power of the various states to infringe our rights. The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that we have "immunities" which are a consequence of being United States citizens and I believe that the Second Amendment provides an immunity from infringement.
But I am not so convinced that our Founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply against the state governments. Certainly the freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment was a protection only against laws passed by Congress. I don't know how clear it is that there was no state which had any intention to infringe the right to keep and bear arms at the time of the Founding. But certainly the Fourteenth Amendment changed the situation to bar disarming of the people by the states.
Too broad of a generalization. I'm sure that most are responsible, but it's not possible for all to be. And when you put people in stressful situations, it's not easy to predict outcomes.
Oh, and our crime rates — in all categories — were dropping further than the rest of the country for some time, so it’s not surprising that it would change at some point.
We’re still the safest big city.
Yes, my point is that it *does* go both ways, and there are valid points on all sides.
As for the Colin Ferguson shooting spree, that was all (or virtually all) Long Islanders involved, not NYC residents. That said, it's next to impossible to get a carry permit there, too. (I've seen the Nassau County application and it is obvious that an ordinary citizen will not be issued a permit to carry, unless that person is in a high-risk business or has some other massively compelling reason, as determined by the NCPD.)
As advertized. But not because of gun laws. Because Mayor G arrested anyone spitting on the sidewalk and other minor offenses on the basis that most of these guys are criminals and this was a good way to get them off the street.
You don't believe that the anti-gun liberals who control Kalifornia's legislature would confiscate my guns if they thought they could get away with it?
You don't think that the Obama administration will be the most anti-gun in history and will advance their anti-gun cause legislatively? These groups are most certainly out to get my guns AND YOURS. If you don't believe this then you haven't been paying attention.
Not at all. If it were possible to carry here in NYC, I'd probably do it. I just like to look at all sides of most issues.
How many incidents of legal CCW holders getting into a silly argument, or a road rage incident, etc. that decide to brandish.
No idea, since we don't have CCW here, so that type of story doesn't hit the news here. Then again, how many cases of brandishing (where carrying is legal) don't get reported? Hard to quantify, right?
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.
Even good people aren't always rational. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who carry are sane and decent people, but even here on FR I've read stories of people bragging about what amounts to brandishing.
The fact of the matter is that an only a very tiny minority of people who have taken the time, trouble, and cash outlay to do what is necessary to ccw have ever been arrested for a gun crime. That tiny minority is far smaller than that of the general public.
If NYC continues to maintain their violation of the 2nd Ammendment, it can rest assured that its people will be defenseless in the face of violent crime and terror - both of which will return sooner or later. It always does.
and Soliton said: "Of course, I am a conservative. "
Again, I can do more than recommend that you read the Declaration of Independence and do so with some appreciation for the fact that the writers bound themselves to each other and to that document with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. If you think that it is a conservative principle to deny the legitimacy of the Declaration, then I question just how you make your ethical decisions.
Lots of talk. I had one Harley rider tell me he carries for his protection against car drivers. I quickly responed that my 4000 pound car outways his 200 grain bullet by a lot and I would quickly aim it for any firearm pointed at me on the road by a biker. Never heard from him again.
Yes, I’m sure that most are like that, but I think that’s a broad generalization.
I never said that strapping on a gun “magically turns a good citizen into a bloodthirsty killer,” and I like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but I really don’t know the answer to this one.
Over the years, I’ve witnessed a few yelling and shoving matches on the subways, and I remember hoping and praying that nobody (involved in the fights) had a weapon, because there would be some massive bloodshed, with all the other people around in very close proximity.
As I’ve said before, I don’t know the right answer to this one. I *do* lean in favor of gun ownership, but I also try to look at the downside as well as the upside.
Living in Miami can be almost as stressful (believe it or not) as living in New York, yet NOBODY who had a CCW when I lived down there ever committed a gun crime. This was a verified fact by Metro Dade police.
The only idiots you will see committing gun crimes out of "disrespect" are the same thugs who carry around Ravens which they can never hold correctly when they shoot (thereby injuring civilians). Such folks would never qualify for a CCW.
I have no reason to believe that it will be. He has to deal with the Supreme Court too and stari decisis
Yes, that was a brilliant move. But if that's all (or most of) what was done, why are we still the safest big city? Not even Rudy could keep spitters and other "quality of life" offenders in jail this long. ;-)
Good point.
The "broken windows" policy worked with Rudy and has backslid a bit under Bloomie. Who knows what will happen to it under the next Dinkens-esque liberal who takes the mayorship.
Is it really such a good idea to have so much police power at the disposal of any mayor? There are issues of freedom apart from the 2nd Ammendment here.
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.