Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Free Plaxico Burress - New York City's gun law is unconstitutional

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:35 AM
Original message
Free Plaxico Burress - New York City's gun law is unconstitutional
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html

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.

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.

...

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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
amdezurik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. nope, no sympathy for that
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, yeah. A millionaire with a gun tucked into his sweatpants is on top of my list of action items.
I'll get right on that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. It all depends on the standard of review....
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 10:53 AM by Davis_X_Machina
...the Court chooses when it finally decides a g/c case.

Under a 'strict scrutiny'standard, Burress perhaps has a case.
Under a 'rational relation' standard, he's toast.
Under an intermediate standard, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Con law is suprisingly non-binary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Carry a gun into a public arena where liquor is served? Sorry, I don't approve.
If he was so nervous that he had to carry a gun into a nightclub, maybe he should have stayed home to party.

I'm glad the Giants are effectively cutting him loose by suspending his participation in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. But is he charged with that or merely possessing a gun? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. idiots like him are why there are calls for gun control laws
Concealed weapon?

He needs to be locked away as a danger to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. Giants had to cut somebody..................
The Giants would have had to play without calling a huddle. Ahmad Bradshaw took a dive on a larceny rap. So a huddle would involve consorting with known felons, violating terms of probation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. So the WSJ is advocating a National Firearms License.....that
seems to be what they are saying. Even having a NY State license isn't good enough for NY City, you must obtain one of theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hoplophile Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
8. My .02 on this.
I believe firmly in the right to carry a concealed firearm (it is that part of the 2A that says "bear arms"). I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said "It is every gentleman's duty to at all times go armed. (but it may have been one of the other three Founding Fathers) Now that being said I also firmly believe in a person getting a license to do so. That is a reasonable restriction that insures a person bearing arms in public is qualified to do so and trained in the legalities of when and when not to shoot. I also believe that if a person meets all the qualifications for that license the license MUST be issued and not left to the whim of a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. If you choose to ignore laws be prepared to face the music.
If you choose to make a stand and ignore laws you feel are unjust you need to be prepared for the consequences.

He broke the law. Here come the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. An unholstered Glock...I guessed right...
When I heard about the incident, I immediately suspected a Glock was involved.

If you insist on carrying a Glock without a holster, it's wise to not have a round in the chamber.

Mr Burress may have had a concealed weapons permit from Florida, but New York State does not recognize permits from Florida. If New York City did have concealed carry laws similar to Florida laws, the nightclub Mr. Burress visited would have probably been off limits for concealed carry.

Florida law prohibits carrying weapons in a number of places including:

any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption*
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/possession.html

While I feel changing CCW laws in New York State and New York City might be an excellent idea, the incident involving Plaxico Burress hurts the cause.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, sorry, just because...
he's a celebrity doesn't make him exempt from the law. He was in a night club, strapped, and shot himself in the leg. I'm all for him being free to own whatever firearm he chooses in the privacy of his own home. When he begins to carry it, concealed or otherwise, in public then he should expect a higher level of state control. Even if he had a concealed carry permit in a state that allowed it, he'd be in trouble for packing in a liquor permit establishment. The man has poor judgment.

I'll not hitch my Constitutional Rights to a man such as Burris' legal problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indy Lurker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. Did he apply for a New York City permit?
If he applied for a permit and was turned down, he might have some standing (like Heller.)

Even if he were found to have standing, there is no evidence that the Heller decision will lead to concealed carry, especially in a nightclub that serves liquor.

In fact,

From Heller Decision,

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings (or nightclubs), or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. to stupid to realize he could by his rights
just takes contributions and a little spare cash and bingo, legal gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. NYC has been............
straight forward on who gets a concealed carry permit since 1911, "Big Tim" Sullivan and Tammany Hall. You have enough money to grease the right palms (or make the "right contributions") and are connected enough politically, not a problem. Even anti-gun stalwarts like Charles Schumer can get a permit that way.

I have no sympathy for anyone who has no better sense than play the "thug" and stuff a 2 pound pistol into the waistband of a pair of sweatpants. Assuming he paid attention in his concealed carry class in Florida, he had been exposed to better information. A $30 million annual salary can't fix stupid.

Like they say, "Stupid oughta hurt!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. such heroes ...

... such hero-worship ... such is the Guns forum ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. And here you are... paying homage (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. stupidity
I think NYC's CCW system is idiotic, arbitrary, and corrupt (probably unconstitutional to boot)...almost as stupid as Burress's actions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aldo Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-11-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why does Richie Rich (Bloomberg) fear an armed citizenry?
That is the real question.

The New York law is simply insane.

Republicanists = economic terrorists. They hate the American way of life. They hate the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangersmith82 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. He is just another antigun dirtbag
He cannot rule if the citizens are armed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Is this guy still in lockup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-09 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. He's been out on bail since it all went down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC