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 hear you! I should not be posting from my litte Palm phone which has a keyboard smaller than my thumb.
I totally disagree that the citations you just posted support the assertion that Story was talking about modifications to the Constitution that would constrain the states. The very mention of bills of rights in various state constitutions convinces me that Story recognized that the protections of the various states were not all identical. I agree that the various commentators all believed that many of these rights were unalienable and therefor applied to the states INDEPENDENTLY of the U.S. Constitution and INDEPENDENTLY of any explicit statement anywhere. But I don't read into the comments you have provided that they believed that a modification to the U.S. Constitution amounted to a modification to every state constitution.
Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution contains three clauses that explicitly bind the states. But such things as the prohibition against ex post facto laws does not appear there and does not contain language that would make me believe that such a prohibition applied to the states by virtue of appearing in the U.S. Constitution.
Did every state, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution bar ex post facto laws? Is there any state which didn't bar them which was later found to be in noncompliance with a mandate from the U.S. Constitution which bound them to prohibit such laws?
I don't think that you and I differ much on the scope of the Second Amendment protection, as it should apply against the U.S. government. And I don't think we differ on the fact that such a right is unalienable and that it constitutes an infringement when such right is reduced by a state.
But when our Founders ratified their various state and federal constitutions, they had intentions of applicability that did not necessarily match that understanding.
The First Amendment so very clearly omits protection for freedom of speech against state action. What would explain the limited applicability of the First Amendment if your assertion is correct that the Second Amendment was intended to apply universally?
Then you are obviously reading something with a different perspective than mine. To me, in light of the clear language of the text of the legislation that passed the BoR and Art 6 Para 2, it cannot mean anything else.
Is there any state which didn't bar them which was later found to be in noncompliance with a mandate from the U.S. Constitution...
There have been a number of State laws the have passed the State legislatures and found to be in violation of the US Constitution. FindLaw is probably full of them...
The 1St Amendment explicitly States, "Congress shall make no law". There is no such limit placed on the 2A. Or do you think that because the 3rd doesn't limit the States explicitly that Texas could force people to house National guard troops in their homes?
The Constitution applies to the States via Art 6 and the 10th A. The BoR was incorporated upon ratification and applies everywhere the Constitution does. State governments are subordinate to the Fedgov as far as the Constitution gives it primacy and not one jot further.
There is no conflict in the logic in that paragraph. There is if you change it to imply that States can infringe on any BoR protected Rights not mentioned in the State Constitution as well. What use is it then? The Fedgov could turn around and say "shall not be infringed is once again the supreme law of the land", and Minnesota can say "not here it ain't". It defies logic. A Right of the People is a right of ALL people regardless of where in the US they live.
Again, as Albert Gallatin said,
"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, October 7, 1789
This was the view until the first couple of decades of the 20th Century. Do you mean to imply that they just over looked this fact for the first 120 years?
Then one certainly cannot say that the First Amendment was intended to constrain the states. Nor can one categorically state that the Bill of Rights was meant to constrain the states, since one of the amendments quite explicitly constrains only Congress.
I certainly wish that your assessment of the situation was so and that courts throughout the land had agreed from the first that it was so. At best I see that there are ambiguities but also I see no need whatever for any of the authors or ratifiers to agree to modifications to their own state constitutions that are at all ambiguous.
There are clauses in the Constitution that explicitly state, "No state shall ...". The ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution were free to include the same language as a preface to the Bill of Rights, but they didn't.
Here is part of the preamble to the Bill of Rights:"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."
Nothing in this preamble leads me to believe that the ratifiers would expect that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of powers of the STATES.
Then I suggest you go back and re-read Art 6 Para 2 and stop wasting my time. I've lost patience.
Not necessarily. But we are in far less danger of being bored to death.
That’s pathetic. Irrelevant, boilerplate attacks. *yawn* I’m done with you.
Wow... you just got back around to reviving this done to death thread? Were you bored?
Still not buying your pro-gun control crap.
Nope. Actually have things to do here in the big bad eeeeevil city, and didn’t have the time to get back here before then.
If you are capable of translating that into English, I might be able to reply.
Still not buying your pro-gun control crap.
Nice try, but I'm not in favor of gun control (no hyphen needed there). It's sad that in your little world, anyone who dares to ask questions and try to look at all sides is smeared and attacked.
Your posts 243 and 256 are appeals for gun licensing and more controls on who can carry. So yeah, your statements are deserving of being "attacked". In 297 again you use liberal logic to try and excuse your pro-gun control stance.
Don't be afraid to own up to it. Just don't pretend you've got the Constitution on your side.
You have no clue what my side is.
You've made it pretty clear. People are too panicky in your subways, so shouldn't carry. Your large liberal cities are better than us smaller cities (sub-1M population), even though our crime rates are STILL lower than yours. You think licensing schemes before being able to exercise a Right are just peachy.
Let me know if I'm wandering off track here...
Why am I barred from carrying my CCW in NYC? as opposed to Rochester or Albany or Watertown where I can carry my weapon at any time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I surely don’t know the answer but did you ever hear the claim that the Sullivan law was named after a man who got it passed so that his constituents who made their living by robbing people would not have to fear that their victims might be armed?
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.