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!)
Posted on 12/31/2011 6:57:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Put the burden of determining state jurisdictions on them and let NYC law enforcement figure out how to get her back to stand trial.
But Chris Christy King of the RINO’s would never let that happen!
Now, there's an interesting misspelling. The verb here is "threw."
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.
I could see something like this being a good case to bring to the US Supreme Court at some point.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!)
“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.
They aren’t forgetting they are armed. What they are doing is not paying attention to situational awareness of crossing imaginary lines.
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.
Thank you. Advice I will now put into action.
“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.
“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)
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?
You nailed it. States rights can never trump the Constitution, yet many on the right argue for this when it comes to guns.
You must not carry every day. I do.
Pants. Wallet, watch, cell phone, gun.
Every day.
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.