View Full Version : Plaxico Burress and the 2A
Nathan_Bell
12-04-08, 08:12
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Yeah, he is a dipshit for having a gun in that situation, but the writer of the opinion piece makes a few good arguments. Would they be strong enough for a Heller type challenge?
Well, as much as I think Burress is an idiot (I'm so glad the Steelers got rid of him) I would love to see Burress take NYC to court and shove the Second Amendment up Bloomberg's @$$!
It won't happen but...
Nathan_Bell
12-04-08, 08:35
Well, as much as I think Burress is an idiot (I'm so glad the Steelers got rid of him) I would love to see Burress take NYC to court and shove the Second Amendment up Bloomberg's @$$!
It won't happen but...
Dunno, if I was going to potentially lose tens of millions of dollars, I might go shopping for some good legal talent to try and fold it and shove it.
Business_Casual
12-04-08, 08:35
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that violating the law doesn't give you standing. If he had applied for a permit, been denied and then suffered harm, I think that would have given him standing.
M_P
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that violating the law doesn't give you standing. If he had applied for a permit, been denied and then suffered harm, I think that would have given him standing.
M_P
Or even if he'd have been carrying discreetly, and safely, and then got caught for a more righteous reason than shooting oneself in the middle of a night club.
its nice to see that op-ed appear in the WSJ...someone who gets it in a mainstream, well-respected paper....
OldNavyGuy
12-04-08, 09:07
what the hell kind of name is "Plaxico" ????????
sound like a material for making wine bottles :D :p :D
what the hell kind of name is "Plaxico" ????????
sound like a material for making wine bottles :D :p :D
Maybe his parents named him after one of the great IPSC shooter and former pistolsmith J. Michael Plaxco with a slight spelling change. :)
Second amendment aside, it's a stupid situation in the first place. Someone told me of a well known instructor (who's name escapes me at the moment) saying something to the effect of "stupid people doing stupid thing in stupid place" will get into trouble everytime. Carrying a gun illegally in a nightclub while drinking at late night/early morning then proceeded to do something to cause such gun to fall down one's pants leg and cause a negligent discharge qualified as STUPID at best.
Maybe his parents named him after one of the great IPSC shooter and former pistolsmith J. Michael Plaxco with a slight spelling change. :)
Second amendment aside, it's a stupid situation in the first place. Someone told me of a well known instructor (who's name escapes me at the moment) saying something to the effect of "stupid people doing stupid thing in stupid place" will get into trouble everytime. Carrying a gun illegally in a nightclub while drinking at late night/early morning then proceeded to do something to cause such gun to fall down one's pants leg and cause a negligent discharge qualified as STUPID at best.
I agree with him being "stupid."
Further, I would suggest that a holster, real pants and a belt would have enabled Mr. Burress to avoid shooting himself.
Buckaroo
Now he's suspended for the rest of the season. Self destructed just like Michael Vick.
David Thomas
12-04-08, 10:40
ESPN radio and the talking heads on the shows like Mike and Mike and the Herd are all over this thing. Unfortunately, they are going further than the facts of this case and making much broader statements condemning concealed carry and even the ownership of guns. Plaxico is an idiot had has given concealed carry a black eye and the gun control crowd another opportunity to argue their platform.
They also announced today on one of those shows that the 49ers conducted a poll with their players to find out who owned guns.
Well, sportscasters in general aren't exactly scholars are they? I don't watch much sports at all, but the sportscasters usually strike me as idiots. So I really don't care what uninformed opinions they have.
On the other hand, I think you could make the case for suggesting that wealthy athletes who can afford a security detail should pay for one instead of carrying themselves.
Good article, written by someone from the Cato institute, which was behind the Heller case. But I don't think Plexiglass will have standing. There is no constitutional requirement for states to recognize other states' carry permits, nor is there a requirement for any state to issue a non-resident permit.
Various states have various laws. Some recognize some states' permits (but not all), some issue non-resident permits and some do not. It's a patchwork that should probably be standardized somehow, but it very much is a state issue, just like driver's licenses and professional licenses.
Had he been a NYC resident, applied and denied, then carried anyway for his protection, he might get somewhere. But as a resident of another state it's not likely at all.
Jay Cunningham
12-04-08, 11:20
Well, sportscasters in general aren't exactly scholars are they? I don't watch much sports at all, but the sportscasters usually strike me as idiots.
I know this is "painting with a broad brush" but I agree with the above.
High school football players who can't let go of the past - usually morons who can only view the world through the prism of spectator sports.
ESPN radio and the talking heads on the shows like Mike and Mike and the Herd are all over this thing. Unfortunately, they are going further than the facts of this case and making much broader statements condemning concealed carry and even the ownership of guns. Plaxico is an idiot had has given concealed carry a black eye and the gun control crowd another opportunity to argue their platform.
They also announced today on one of those shows that the 49ers conducted a poll with their players to find out who owned guns.
Yeah, I keep hearing people...both show hosts and callers...saying that he was dumb (dumber?) for carrying his gun with a round in the chamber. One guy stated that unless you were the Police or Military...you had no business carrying a gun or carrying a gun with "one up the pipe"! :rolleyes:
I know this is "painting with a broad brush" but I agree with the above.
High school football players who can't let go of the past - usually morons who can only view the world through the prism of spectator sports.
I love when they say things on the pre-game show like:
"The secret to winning this game is getting that ball in the endzone. If you don't get it in the zone, you ain't gonna win."
Then that other guy adds:
"But you also gotta keep the ball out of your endzone".
Then maybe throw in that you need to keep the turnovers down, avoid interceptions, and prevent the quarterback from getting sacked, and you have a game winning strategy!
Seriously, these guys spend hours stating and re-stating the obvious. How in the hell can the pre-game and post game shows (put together) last longer than the actual game?
I think the gun comments come from that fact that these idiots think their association with sports makes them "real men" and tough guys who can settle a dispute like men without the need for any sissy firearms. Notice how that "guns don't make you a real man" comment has come up a few times.
What's a real man? I would say someone who supports his familly, loves his wife and kids, doesn't cheat, doesn't lie, stands up for what is right, and defends his loved ones no matter what happens. It certainly doesn't have a whole lot to do with football.
usually morons who can only view the world through the prism of spectator sports.
This could also apply to gun forum know-it-alls.
Dunno, if I was going to potentially lose tens of millions of dollars, I might go shopping for some good legal talent to try and fold it and shove it.
How about if I stood to potentially earn millions of dollars I might try to avoid situations that could put my paycheck in jeopardy? Of course, in this situation it's too late for that.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that violating the law doesn't give you standing. If he had applied for a permit, been denied and then suffered harm, I think that would have given him standing.
IANAL either but I agree.
... but it very much is a state issue, just like driver's licenses and professional licenses.
Had he been a NYC resident, applied and denied, then carried anyway for his protection, he might get somewhere. But as a resident of another state it's not likely at all.
He's certainly got the money to have a residence in NY if he wanted, and being a sports celebrity could have been enough clout to be approved for a NY permit.
Stupid is as stupid does but in the end because of who he is my guess is he'll pay a fine and do some community service and that's about it. The guy did catch the winning touchdown in the last Super Bowl. Reason to break the law, no, of course not. Reason for a jury of his fans, whoops I mean a jury of his peers to go easy on him, sure.
actually, minus the belt and holster all he had to do is what any responsible glock owner does when he loses grip on his weapon.....LET IT HIT THE FLOOR...
which brings me to my next point...
had he done exactly that...let the weapon drop, and then retrieved it, and it had never discharged...
BUT
an undercover NYPD cop had seen it...he would still be very much in the situation he is in right now...what would we all be saying then?
how many times has someone on this board said "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'
anyone here want to admit in an open forum breaking CCW laws? like Virginia's no CCW in a restaurant? or how about no carry into DC? anyone?
i don't...but I sure as hell know people that do it....and if they were caught somehow you can be damn sure I would be standing up for their right to defend themselves over some draconian DC, Virginia.....or New York City......law
Well, sportscasters in general aren't exactly scholars are they? I don't watch much sports at all, but the sportscasters usually strike me as idiots. So I really don't care what uninformed opinions they have.
The exception of course being Keith Olbermann.
Former sports caster and now a true genius of a social commentator. Clearly, the exception.
I wonder if I'm up for the Worst Person in the World Award now?
There's a difference between someone with a valid state permit carrying into a prohibited location within the same state, and someone with no valid permit who is not a resident doing the same.
I'm not going to judge someone who feels they need to carry in places they have been told they can't because of safety concerns. I have a friend in LA that started carrying after getting attacked multiple times because he is white. And he is pretty big guy who lifts weights and practices martial arts, so it's not like he can't defend himself at all. But greater numbers are greater numbers unless you are Bruce Lee and they all come at you one at a time. Oh, and it's NEVER a hate crime when a gang of minorities attack a white man.
Anyway, he couldn't get a permit so he's doing what he feels is necessary to protect himself. But he knows the consequences if he gets made by a cop. Then again, given how much gangland crap LA cops have to deal with, and the real danger that exists on the street, they might let him go with a warning.
But if you ARE going to carry illegally, you damn well better take every precaution to carry responsibly, discreetly, and in a proper holster. It's up to YOU not to get made. If you tuck the thing in the waistband of your sweatpants and you shoot yourself with it when it falls down your leg, you aren't going to get away with a warning.
USMGoldenEagle
12-04-08, 14:08
Carry a weapon where alcohol is served is against the terms of the CCW, right?
Carry a weapon where alcohol is served is against the terms of the CCW, right?
not in all states.....for example, in Louisiana there are different classes of Alcohol License issued...the two main ones we care about here being License/Bar and License/Restaurant...
you can CCW to a place that serves alcohol that has a License/Restaurant....but not License/Bar
in Virginia you can open carry into a bar....
these are just 2 examples....generally drinking and CCW are not allowed (although in LA, again, there is a BAC you can have....although its very, very low)
but, while in New Orleans last month, I CCW'd to Pat O'Brien's RESTAURANT, watched my wife drink a hurricane, and was completely legal....had I walked 15 feet into the bar I would have been in violation....
USMGoldenEagle
12-04-08, 14:14
not in all states.....for example, in Louisiana there are different classes of Alcohol License issued...the two main ones we care about here being License/Bar and License/Restaurant...
you can CCW to a place that serves alcohol that has a License/Restaurant....but not License/Bar
in Virginia you can open carry into a bar....
these are just 2 examples....generally drinking and CCW are not allowed (although in LA, again, there is a BAC you can have....although its very, very low)
but, while in New Orleans last month, I CCW'd to Pat O'Brien's RESTAURANT, watched my wife drink a hurricane, and was completely legal....had I walked 15 feet into the bar I would have been in violation....
Great explanation. Thanks. I feel better now because I was definitely planning on carrying my weapon in the french quarter and that makes a lot of sense.
Indiana has no restriction on bar carry, and the incidence of license holders shooting up bars is non-existent.
Actually there was a case a few years ago of a shooting in a bar. Some guys got in a fight over a pool game, one broke a cue over the other, and then one pulled a gun and shot the other. A license holder in the bar shot and killed the perp (and hit a couple bystanders, unfortunately) and was found to have acted in self-defense with no charges filed. I think the perp was a felon carrying illegally.
But you are not supposed to carry when intoxicated, so you can go in the bar, you just can't drink.
The fact that everyone seems to "agree" that carrying in a bar is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed is an assumption based on a pile of what-ifs and not based on anything approaching rational analysis of the available data. At least in Indiana, bar carry causes no problems at all. Responsible law abiding license holders are just that - responsible and law abiding. They don't go out and get drunk and get into bar fights with guns. It simply does not happen.
Great explanation. Thanks. I feel better now because I was definitely planning on carrying my weapon in the french quarter and that makes a lot of sense.
no worries...for the record, I wrote the head of the Louisiana State Police concealed carry division and asked him for clarification on this, and then printed out the email and carried it with me when I was in the french quarter, very close to my G19
here is the text of my email:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am traveling next week to New Orleans, and need some clarification regarding carrying in Louisiana. I hold a valid resident permit in Virginia, and a non-resident Utah permit, both which I believe have reciprocity with Louisiana.
I have reviewed the LSP website, and various FAQs on the internet, and so am familiar with most of the requirments I must follow to carry while I am in New Orleans. My primary confusion regards carry into restaurants that also serve alcohol.
The Louisiana provisions state that you may not carry in a place with Class A Retail alcohol permit. Again, from reading the code, it appears that this applies to bars that primarily serve alcohol, and there is a separate class of permits for restaurants that also serve alcohol.
So my question is as follows: if my wife and I go out to dinner at a restaurant that also serves alcohol, am I legally permitted to carry? I understand that I may not carry into a bar, but, being older, I probably won't be frequenting many anyway. However, one doesn't visit New Orleans without enjoying its fine restaurants.
I appreciate your attention to this matter, and will follow up with a phone call on Monday.
I hope you had a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Trio
AND HERE IS HIS RESPONSE:
You can carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol just not in a bar or the portion of the restaurant designated as a bar.
Sgt Starnes
Jay Cunningham
12-04-08, 14:54
This could also apply to gun forum know-it-alls.
If someone on a "gun forum" who knew a lot about guns (but didn't know anything about sports) started spouting off about the Super Bowl prospects of the Pittsburgh Steelers - then I would concede your point.
If someone on a "gun forum" who knew a lot about guns (but didn't know anything about sports) started spouting off about the Super Bowl prospects of the Pittsburgh Steelers - then I would concede your point.
d00d! but the Steelers totally dominated the Big-12 this year! :p
I know this is "painting with a broad brush" but I agree with the above.
High school football players who can't let go of the past - usually morons who can only view the world through the prism of spectator sports.
Who could you be referring too?............... BOOM! TOUGH ACTIN TANACTIN!....
Jay Cunningham
12-04-08, 15:04
d00d! but the Steelers totally dominated the Big-12 this year! :p
I wouldn't know - and yes, I live just outside of Pittsburgh.
:p
I know this is "painting with a broad brush" but I agree with the above.
High school football players who can't let go of the past - usually morons who can only view the world through the prism of spectator sports.
Not often true, my friend.
Many sportscasters are either ex-players, or guys that never played any sports but have an interest in both sports and hearing themselves talk.
Regardless, they have no place passing judgment on this particular issue.
And no, Plaxico did not do us any favors with his stupidity. Carry a gun if you legitimately fear being robbed, even with out a permit? Dumb maybe, but not malicious. Shoot yourself with that same weapon in a public place while drinking?
Bad.
An article that gives a more liberty leaning free market perspective on the situation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kramer/kramer22.html
Here are the last few paragraphs from the article that sums up the situation pretty well, IMHO
"Who's the victim?
To summarize, Burress is being prosecuted not for damaging another person's body or property, for which that person has filed a complaint, seeking restitution and/or damages; he's being prosecuted for not having a permission slip from the State to carry his own property. And the people who helped him get medical treatment are being threatened for not turning Burress in to the State for not having a permission slip and because the piece of his property, for which he didn't have a permission slip, involved in the victimless incident happened to be a gun; and for not cooperating with the State, once the non-crime came to its attention, in helping it gather evidence to prosecute Burress for the non-crime, and possibly to prosecute them for their involvement in the non-crime too.
The despicable treatment by the State of Burress, and the equally despicable threatening of those who went out of their way to help him with his accidental injury, is another example of the State's hegemonic relationship with the people it "serves," as Butler Shaffer has quipped, "the way a cannibal 'serves' his neighbor."
In a free society, Burress would be responsible for paying his hospital bill and for any damage to the nightclub, after which he could put the whole unpleasant accident behind him and get on with his life.
Instead, the State is going to ruin Burress' career and life, and cause unspeakable anguish for his loved ones, by locking him in a cage inside a socialist hellhole for a "crime" that hurt no one except for himself – and even that, just barely. The only victim in this "crime" is Burress.
State "justice"
The State is not what keeps the amorphous, ill-defined entity it calls "society" from descending into "chaos."
And its criminal "justice" system does not exist to make victims whole again; rather, it's a giant make-work scam for parasitical "law enforcement" officials, politicians, and court employees. As the sickening Burress case shows, much of the State's "law enforcement" consists of work that wouldn't exist in a free society, prosecuting victimless crimes and trying to outlaw peaceful, voluntary behavior.
And much of the real crime that occurs (like murders and robberies) wouldn't happen if the State weren't creating black markets in commodities like narcotics; forcibly preventing people from defending themselves and their property through things like gun control laws; and socializing property like streets so that there's no owner who has to be concerned about the safety of his paying customers.
And when one of those real crimes occurs, thanks to the wonders of socialism, the victim not only has to pay with his taxes for the police force that failed to protect him or his property (and may also fail to catch a suspect), but if someone is charged, the victim will suffer the further indignity of paying for the trial, and further still of paying for the perpetrator's incarceration if he's convicted.
There's nothing the State can do that the market can't do better, faster, cheaper, and fairer. If the persecution of Plaxico Burress is an example of the State's "justice," how could free market courts be any worse?"
I'm still in law school, so I haven't taken the Bar yet, but here is my take:
Plaxico may have standing based on equal protection. The 14th amendment states, inter alia, that "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." NY will not issue permits to to out of state residents. He can try to argue that he has been deprived of the right to carry his property in the state by the law banning the carry of the gun. This is a very tenuous argument and not likely to succeed. The state did not confiscate his property, it just said 'you can't have that here'.
However, Plaxico can argue that he was denied equal protection under the law based on his classification as an out of state resident. The essence of the equal protection clause is that 'people who are similarly situated will be treated equally.' He could not avail himself of the law permitting carry because of his status as an nonresident. If this angle is valid, the fact he didn't apply is not relevant; because the statue forbade out of staters from obtaining a permit entirely. If he was a resident this would not apply because he would have suffered no injury at law; the state may have issued him a permit but he didn't apply for one so the outcome is not clear. This disparity of results may be sufficient to give rise to an equal protection claim.
A better argument would be based on the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Article IV Clause 2 states, inter alia, that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof.... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Plaxico can argue that as a result of the Heller decision he has the right to possess his handgun. Now, the right is not an absolute and may be restricted by states. The issuance of a permit may be seen as a valid restriction. But the NY law does not simply restrict that right, it absolutely bars it. There is no way for a out of state resident to obtain a permit. If the right to possess the firearm (within reasonable restrictions as per Heller) is valid federal law, then the NY law flatly barring out of staters from obtaining a permit is unconstitutional via the Supremacy clause.
Well, thats my spent brass. Take it for what its worth.
Carry a weapon where alcohol is served is against the terms of the CCW, right?
I hold a NYS Unrestricted Pistol Permit. In my county it is shall issue. There are no restrictions in NY about carrying in church's or licensed premises (Bars that serve alcohol).
Gentoo, not a bad argument, but there is a big roadblock to that argument....incorporation...'
the Supreme Court has never incorporated the 2nd Amendment to be enforceable against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment...
As such, many circuits still do not recognize the 2A as pertaining to the states; the 4th Circuit is a perfect example of this...it outright refuses to recognize the 2A as incorporated and applicable to the states....
recently a gentleman in Virginia sued the City of Norfolk in federal court basically about this very purpose and lost....the judge holding that the 2A still has not been incorporated via the 14th....(fyi, I don't know what year you are in law school, but I didn't think my law school delved deep enough into incorporation in 1st year Con Law)
at any rate, after Slaughterhouse neutered the 14th, and we became reliant on incorporation, we have been forced to deal with various opinions of various circuits...i believe there is a circuit that says it is incorporated....I think the issue is pending in the 9th....
Burress I suppose could try and make the incorporation argument....or hell, a full faith and credit argument (which would also fail) since he does hold a valid permit from another state...but even if he makes the incorporation argument, there is still the reasonable restriction argument, which we all know Scalia said we could have....so you now find yourself arguing what the reasonable restriction is...
this is really one of the 2 failures of Heller IMO.....failure to incorporate, and failure to specifically define the level of scrutiny applied to Scalia's "reasonable restrictions"....it seems, based on his opinion, to be the intermediate level of scutiny generally reserved for gender inequality issues (see VMI...)..
we NEED to have these arguments, and the definitions defined....i just don't know if I want Plexiglass being the reason they happen (Hail to the Redskins....damn Giants)
.anyhooo......good thinking, brother, good luck, I hope you are doing well...there are a few of us "bar survivors" on the board, if you ever need to ask some questions about the process, shoot me an IM
EDIT: i sounded too preachy....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html
Free Plaxico Burress
New York City's gun law is unconstitutional.
By DAVID B. KOPEL
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.
[Commentary] AP
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.
It appears that he put the unholstered gun in the waistband of his sweatpants, and when it slipped, he grabbed for it, accidentally hitting the trigger. To make matters worse, according to press accounts, he was seen drinking and may have been consuming alcohol -- which all firearms safety training (including the class he would have been required to take for his Florida permit) absolutely forbids for people handling guns. And of course Mr. Burress's handgun should have been holstered to prevent unintentional movement of the trigger. Fortunately, his negligent discharge did not harm anyone else.
Mr. Burress's behavior was bad. However, Mr. Burress is not facing prosecution for carelessness, but simply for carrying a weapon. This is unjust and perhaps unconstitutional. The legal issues are a bit tangled, but here is the background:
This summer, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the District's handgun ban, and its ban on use of any firearm for self-defense in the home, violated the Second Amendment, which guarantees the individual right to bear arms. D.C. is a federal enclave, and the Court did not rule whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. But as other cases reach it in the wake of Heller, it will.
The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.
In today's Opinion Journal
And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.
Some commentators contend that Plaxico Burress should have hired bodyguards, instead of carrying a gun himself. Mr. Burress might now agree. But people who aren't as wealthy as he is also deserve to be safe, and they don't have the money for bodyguards. New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.
The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
Mr. Kopel is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C., and research director of the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colo.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Kopel, David B. "Free Plaxico Burress." The Cato Institute. December 4, 2008. 5 Dec 2008 <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9820>
If this guy was Joe the Plumber, the WSJ, NFL nor anyone else would give a shit. It's not until someone of stature has to face the music that it becomes a miscarriage of justice.
I grew up in California. I spent maybe half of my life there. The other half was overseas or in other states. A few months ago I finally made the move and got out. I have a CCW from 3 different states and I know that NONE OF THEM are valid in California-point blank. Did I still have a firearm with me? Yes. But, I was smart about it. I also tried to avoid going anywhere that would have escalated my chances of needing it. As far as I am concerned this guy is an idiot. He did not apply for and get denied a permit. Heller did not re-affirm any right to carry a firearm. He was not carrying his pistol responsibly and now everyone should jump in to defend him? No, thanks. He is no better than the idiots in Massachusetts and the Brady Bunch will use guys like him to demonstrate that concealed carry is wrong and dangerous.
If this guy was Joe the Plumber, the WSJ, NFL nor anyone else would give a shit. It's not until someone of stature has to face the music that it becomes a miscarriage of justice.
Never heard clearer words spoken.
The Constitution applies to stupid fools and minorities also. I'm not making a racial issue of this but the writers of New York's Sullivan Law did.
How is the Sullivan Law considered racist? More like elitist as far as I can tell.
The Constitution applies to stupid fools and minorities also. I'm not making a racial issue of this but the writers of New York's Sullivan Law did.
Search the history of the The Sullivan Act. It was written to by the Irish mob to keep guns out of the hands of Italians and Jews.
Search the history of the The Sullivan Act. It was written to by the Irish mob to keep guns out of the hands of Italians and Jews.
Lots of gun control laws have been based on racial fears.
The GCA of '68 was enacted due to race riots and the fear of militant armed groups like the Black Panthers. People were OK with gun control as long as meant guns would be kept out of the hands of minorities.
The import ban of '89 was partially a reaction to fears of drug gangs using AK's and other military style weapons in the streets. Drug gangs are usually run by minorities (at least at the street level). This was the height of the crack epidemic and drug violence was peaking in the major cities.
The AWB of '94 also played into fears of drug crime in the streets.
Virtually all cities with handgun bans have large minority populations, and the bans are justified based on the high rate of crime among the minority populations.
Almost every time the citizens of the United States have agreed to give up their 2nd amendment rights, it has been due to the fear of crimes committed by minorities. Apparently, this is a very effective tactic.
what the hell kind of name is "Plaxico" ????????
sound like a material for making wine bottles :D :p :D
:o:D:p
I think one can find a clear correlation between banning firearms in the US and newly freed slaves.
And much of the street crime is committed by minorities and it is used as justification for disarming the whole populace. Good tactic if you can get people to draw the "proper" conclusions.
Trio, thanks for your input. We didn't really talk about incorporation much, though we did spend quite a bit more time that would have been expected on the 2A, my con law prof was a big pro 2A guy and has a carry permit, and openly stated that he hated that he couldn't carry in class. I talked AR-15's and carry pieces with him a few times after class :D
.anyhooo......good thinking, brother, good luck, I hope you are doing well...there are a few of us "bar survivors" on the board, if you ever need to ask some questions about the process, shoot me an IM
Thanks for the kind words... in final season now, 2 more left, one on Mon and one on Thurs... I really should be studying right now :p:cool:
KintlaLake
12-06-08, 07:36
Obviously, it'd be unwise for right-to-carry advocates to make Plaxico Burress our poster boy.
Less obvious is the fact that we are, like it or not, fundamentally on the side of his right to carry. (Infractions and idiocy notwithstanding, of course.)
That's the funny thing about liberty.
Gutshot John
12-06-08, 11:14
He knew the law, and he broke the law, then he tried to cover up a crime. I'm not sure I see what the 2a has to do with anything other than Burress's actions reflecting poorly on those that carry LEGALLY.
This has nothing to do with the 2a and we do ourselves a disservice by embracing the "thug" lifestyle as somehow an expression of your 2a rights.
KintlaLake
12-06-08, 18:19
I'm not saying Mr. Burress did any favors for law-abiding RKBAers -- RIF:
(Infractions and idiocy notwithstanding, of course.)
I'm saying that strange bedfellows are born of a struggle to preserve liberty.
Circular firing squad...dis-missed! ;)
He knew the law, and he broke the law, then he tried to cover up a crime. I'm not sure I see what the 2a has to do with anything other than Burress's actions reflecting poorly on those that carry LEGALLY.
This has nothing to do with the 2a and we do ourselves a disservice by embracing the "thug" lifestyle as somehow an expression of your 2a rights.
So I guess if The Kenyan gets a law passed requiring you to surrender your arms, you'll comply with the law?
After all, to do anything else would be illegal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.