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

[mikem317]

You and I, at least I, am not celebrities, he is. That puts him in a different class of people. It's certainly not an option for me, but it's almost a requirement for him.

But he wasn't in Vermont, he was in New York City and subject to their laws. If people ignore laws that they find inconvenient, then we are on the road to anarchy.

It's not a requirement to have a bodyguard. It's an option. So is carrying a firearm, pepper spray or a knife. These are all self-defense options, some more viable than others. But there's no requirement for a celebrity to hire a staff of bodyguards.

So would you obey a law that required anything of you? What happens the government required you to serve three years of your life in the military? Or a law that required bi-weekly visits from the government to scope the inside of your house? Or that you could only have one child? These are all examples of real laws (not necessarily American laws) that aren't good laws.

These are all bad laws, none them worth following. Just because a law is a law, doesn't make it a good law worthy of obedience.

 

[LT1MCSS]

That's not Burress's legal problem.

I didn't say it was his legal problem. Just a simple fact to show how stupid he is. I could really careless he shot himself in the leg, foot, whatever. Honestly I didn't even know who he was, nor do I care now. We all make our own beds, he could have avoided it easily by being responsible.

 

[Mattitude]

Are you serious? His crime is carrying a firearm in NYC without a permit. That is the LAW at the moment like it or not. I do know that non-residents can't carry in NY and that is one reason that I don't go there. Just because out-of-staters can't carry doesn't mean that the state/city law just doesn't apply to them. If you believe so firmly in what you say then I invite you to openly test your belief in your constitutional right. I'll bet that you will lose your case pretty quickly. The courts will rule on what the current laws ARE, not they should be.

What's his crime? Not having a piece of paper from the government?

You know that non-residents can't carry into New York. New York does not allow non-residents to have firearm permits, AFAIK.

Yes, Burress hurt himself via negligent discharge. He should be required to reimburse the night club for any damage that the errand bullet might have caused.

NOBODY should be required to carry a government permission slip for a Constitutional right. Burress, of course, is not an exception.

 

[Garys]

It's not a requirement to have a bodyguard. It's an option. So is carrying a firearm, pepper spray or a knife. These are all self-defense options, some more viable than others. But there's no requirement for a celebrity to hire a staff of bodyguards.

No there isn't, but prudence would certainly dictate that they do this.

So would you obey a law that required anything of you? What happens the government required you to serve three years of your life in the military? Or a law that required bi-weekly visits from the government to scope the inside of your house? Or that you could only have one child? These are all examples of real laws (not necessarily American laws) that aren't good laws.

These are all bad laws, none them worth following. Just because a law is a law, doesn't make it a good law worthy of obedience.

This is a foolish position to take. Are you positing that if someone thinks a law is bad they can just ignore it? Are you seriously suggesting that?

 

[Mattitude]

You are correct that I don't know you but from what you posted about your open defiance to current laws just because you disagree with them is irresponsible. Civil disobedience is a pretty quick way to have your rights removed. Saying that if enough people did it, laws would change/things would be accepted is crazy. Dealing with firearms is on the same level as religion. They are both very hot, volitile topics and there are ways to deal with them. I've never heard the NRA call out for civil disobedience...why is that? There are plenty of NRA members and according to you that is how change happens. Our country started out with conflict but you fail to state that the colonies were ruled under a monarchy...there were no lawmakers/congress/special interest groups that we have today. I was too young in the 70's to remember about any gun grabbing, but if I was it would be foolish of me to hide/store firearms. When you will get caught you won't be able to afford the fines and legal fees from a conviction. Plaxico committed a felony, just like every other person who carried in NYC w/o a permit and should be treated and convicted the same. If you don't think so then why don't you call for the release of everyone that was "illegally" convicted? It's only fair. Also, you don't know me and calling me a "sheep" is way off. I've served 17+ years to defend our nation and her ideals and am now permenantly disabled from my service. To say that I should ignore laws after I swore to protect America and the constitution is totally wrong. I will obey the laws until they are changed but I will also support groups that share my same principles.

You know absolutely nothing about me. When did I say I commit felonies? I said I break some laws I dont agree with on principle. Those could be civil ordinances for all you know. Don't put words in my mouth. The definition of a sheep is someone who blindly gives up there rights and who is herded by the almightly law If enough people did it, yes it would help our cause. In case you haven't been paying attention to the last couple hundred years of history, it's compliance with these insane laws that got the 2A where it is now. Plaxico is an idiot, and I'm pretty sure I've stated that in this thread

Again, you know nothing about me. You have no basis for that judgement. I support GOAL and NRA. I support 2A in the traditional sense as much as anyone, so hold off on this BS please. You've taken this disagreement to the level of personal attacks and you need to cool out.



I never once said I break any firearms related laws. You're just making shit up now. I said I break laws that I don't agree with. No, I don't wear a seatbelt, yes I speed sometimes. Where the f*** did you get the idea that I'm running around breaking all kinds of firearms laws? I have an LTC-A and am in compliance with every single federal and state law. My point about civil disobedience is that it's a valid vehicle for real change. Our country was founded on it. If the founders surrendered their weapons at Concord, there would be no USA. I dont have millions upon millions of dollars to challenge this bullshit to the highest court like Plaxico does. If I was that rich you bet your ass i'd carry a gun with or without a golden ticket.

When MA passes a statewide handgun ban like they tried to in the 70's are you gonna turn yours in? Do you draw a line anywhere in regards to what laws you'll obey or are you so scared of your masters that anything goes?

 

[Negotiator]

I don't blame the incident on the gun. Any gun can be mishandled.

Sounds like a Glock fumble from this ball catcher...should have let it hit the ground, rather than trying to catch it.

 

[GSG]

When was the last time you ever heard of a case of a police officer in Manhattan having to discharge his firearm?

When NYPD released their officer involved shooting statistics two years ago, they found that the average distance of shooting was 4-6 feet (IIRC, too lazy to look it up). That's an up close and personal distance, where you see someone's eyes, not just crowds.

Just saying.

 

[doobie]

He's got a gun safety ad.

 

[mikem317]

I didn't say it was his legal problem. Just a simple fact to show how stupid he is. I could really careless he shot himself in the leg, foot, whatever. Honestly I didn't even know who he was, nor do I care now. We all make our own beds, he could have avoided it easily by being responsible.

What's stupid? Shooting yourself in the thigh? Carrying a gun without the government's permission? Carrying a gun (legal or illegal) into a night club? Not using an appropriate holster?

How could he avoid what?

Are you serious? His crime is carrying a firearm in NYC without a permit. That is the LAW at the moment like it or not. I do know that non-residents can't carry in NY and that is one reason that I don't go there. Just because out-of-staters can't carry doesn't mean that the state/city law just doesn't apply to them. If you believe so firmly in what you say then I invite you to openly test your belief in your constitutional right. I'll bet that you will lose your case pretty quickly. The courts will rule on what the current laws ARE, not they should be.

Yes, there is no way a person that's not a resident in New York to carry a firearm into New York, AFAIK.

Handguns are a very effective means for self-preservation. People will carry weapons regardless of government interference. After all, it's a human right. The New York government is equally complicit, in my view. They ought to have a sound and sensible way for non-residents to obtain permits, at the least, or in the other extreme, adopt something analogous to Vermont's.

I wish I had the monetary and legal capacity to challenge New York's unconstitutional law that prohibits lawful carry. I don't frequent New York regularly (I tend to avoid large metropolises). But given this, if I had the means, I'd certainly consider a challenge. Perhaps something might come afoot when the Heller decision is incorporated via Parker?

Do you obey all laws, all the time? Are there any bad laws in your opinion? I'll opine that this is one of them. Considering the inherent flaws of government, there are many more!

No there isn't, but prudence would certainly dictate that they do this.

This is a foolish position to take. Are you positing that if someone thinks a law is bad they can just ignore it? Are you seriously suggesting that?

"Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice."- Gandhi

Nelson Mandela and the Purple Rain Protest? Mandela invoked civil disobedience, taking issue with South Africa's discriminatory Apartheid system.

Rosa Parks and her bus seating protest? Parks, a black woman, refused to give up her taken seat at the front of the bus to yield to a white patron.

John Hancock? The seminal American patriot being a key component in America's independence movement against the Crown, organizing and participating in the Boston Tea Party; an event to protest the oppressive tax policies levied on the American colonists.

So no. I don't advocate that one should necessary ignore the law.

 

[doobie]

"Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice."- Gandhi

Nelson Mandela and the Purple Rain Protest? Mandela invoked civil disobedience, taking issue with South Africa's discriminatory Apartheid system.

Rosa Parks and her bus seating protest? Parks, a black woman, refused to give up her taken seat at the front of the bus to yield to a white patron.

John Hancock? The seminal American patriot being a key component in America's independence movement against the Crown, organizing and participating in the Boston Tea Party; an event to protest the oppressive tax policies levied on the American colonists.

So no. I don't advocate that one should necessary ignore the law.

"Civil Disobedience" or maybe police stupidity might help remove pistol permits in NH. There are a few people who are on trial for pistol related violations and the attorney representing them has a goal for the outcome to get the courts to rule that pistol permits are a violation of the state constitution and should be optional (for those who want to CCW out of state).

 

[mikem317]

"Civil Disobedience" or maybe police stupidity might help remove pistol permits in NH. There are a few people who are on trial for pistol related violations and the attorney representing them has a goal for the outcome to get the courts to rule that pistol permits are a violation of the state constitution and should be optional (for those who want to CCW out of state).

Cool. Hopefully it moves forward!

There's a reason why Vermont is dead last in violent crime categories with New Hampshire not far behind.

IMHO, if you're a mentally-suitable adult, without a violent criminal past, you should be able to carry.

 

[Mattitude]

There are people out there that will carry a firearm no matter what but carrying where it is against the law is a very expensive gamble that will most likely take away the rights FOREVER that you hold so dearly...not only that but good luck trying to find a job even flipping burgers. The impact on a family can be grave. It is NOT a human right to carry a firearm, but is is our right as law abiding AMERICANS. I do believe that it is a human right to defend you and your family without reprocussion. With Heller, the laws are changing and even Chicago is feeling the heat to force changes. It is possible that in the near future all states will honor all other state's CCW holder's permits. National "hot button" laws like this don't change overnight, but because of the Heller decision they WILL have to change. Civil disobedience isn't the way to go here, actively staying on your elected officials should work better. It didn't take civil disobedience for any state that I know of to enact CCW laws and not to any of my knowledge no civil disobedience happened to allow NFA firearms ownership. Have I broken any laws? I'm sure I have broken some misdomeanor laws, but I never set out to purposely to do so and happened because I was unaware. Have I broken any firearms laws? I am proud to say that I haven't. I don't patronize establishments that don't allow carry and I spend my money in places that do allow. I don't drink ANY alcohol not only when I carry, but if there are any firearms present. The laws must change, but back OT, Burris did break the current law in NYC and he must face the same fate as anyone else who's been charged with the same violation that happened that same day, the day before, and the days after. As a high profile sports figure, he should be held to a higher standard...not lower the standard just because he has fame and money. That's the law, bottom line.

People will carry weapons regardless of government interference. After all, it's a human right. The New York government is equally complicit, in my view. They ought to have a sound and sensible way for non-residents to obtain permits, at the least, or in the other extreme, adopt something analogous to Vermont's.


Do you obey all laws, all the time? Are there any bad laws in your opinion? I'll opine that this is one of them. Considering the inherent flaws of government, there are many more!

 

[mikem317]

There are people out there that will carry a firearm no matter what but carrying where it is against the law is a very expensive gamble that will most likely take away the rights FOREVER that you hold so dearly...not only that but good luck trying to find a job even flipping burgers. The impact on a family can be grave. It is NOT a human right to carry a firearm, but is is our right as law abiding AMERICANS. I do believe that it is a human right to defend you and your family without reprocussion. With Heller, the laws are changing and even Chicago is feeling the heat to force changes. It is possible that in the near future all states will honor all other state's CCW holder's permits. National "hot button" laws like this don't change overnight, but because of the Heller decision they WILL have to change. Civil disobedience isn't the way to go here, actively staying on your elected officials should work better. It didn't take civil disobedience for any state that I know of to enact CCW laws and not to any of my knowledge no civil disobedience happened to allow NFA firearms ownership. Have I broken any laws? I'm sure I have broken some misdomeanor laws, but I never set out to purposely to do so and happened because I was unaware. Have I broken any firearms laws? I am proud to say that I haven't. I don't patronize establishments that don't allow carry and I spend my money in places that do allow. I don't drink ANY alcohol not only when I carry, but if there are any firearms present. The laws must change, but back OT, Burris did break the current law in NYC and he must face the same fate as anyone else who's been charged with the same violation that happened that same day, the day before, and the days after. As a high profile sports figure, he should be held to a higher standard...not lower the standard just because he has fame and money. That's the law, bottom line.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - United States Declaration of Independence

All men, regardless if they are American or not, are endowed with certain, unalienable rights at their creation. This includes self-preservation. And guns can be effectively used as a tool for self-preservation.

Like many other NES posters, I'm aware of the dire consequences of disobeying a firearms regulation. But obedience shouldn't be necessarily indicative of support.

Examples of civil disobedience do not have to include carrying a firearm in a prohibited zone or means. A campus-carry rights group organized an open-holster day a few years ago.

Remember, Burress is *not* being brought up on charges of negligent discharge. He allegedly brought a firearm that he lawfully owned in another state, his property, into another state that prohibits non-residents from carrying firearms. This is an invented crime. He didn't hurt anybody else or anybody else's property. Maybe he damaged the floor tile of the night club, and he should be responsible for its repair. Burress hurt himself and he should pay for any medical service rendered. In brief, nobody was hurt, therefore, this is a victimless crime. Just like getting nabbed for traveling 60 mph in a 55 mph zone.

The government needs to invent crimes to keep the wheel turning. Burress didn't and doesn't represent a threat as best as I can tell. Whether woefully ignorant of the law or willfully disobeying it is immaterial I guess.

 

[Mattitude]

We being Americans do hold the right of self-defense with a firearm, other nations do not recognize this right. Americans are unique in this world and we live in the country with the most freedoms. It is a God given right to every man/woman to defend themselves, it is our (recognized) right as Americans to use a firearm in that defense. Non-citizens do not fall under our constitution as they are not Americans, again it is our unique right. I do remember students wearing empty holsters, but I would call that a protest. They were voicing their opinions without breaking any laws. Civil disobedience typically involves some type of law breaking. The only things that I can think of at the moment is the civil rights movement in the 50's-60's. Riding in the front of the bus, drinking from the "whites only" fountain, etc. Although asenine & idiotic, there were laws in place to keep segregation but some, and then many, participated in civil disobedience to change the laws they were breaking. Back to Burris...yes he was charged with carrying a firearm in NYC, which is against the law unless you have a nearly impossible to get CCW permit. The ND isn't an issue and is such that he didn't get charged for that. From what I read, the handgun in question (did they find it yet???) wasn't even registered in NJ where Burris LIVES. My take is that the handgun wasn't lawfully owned to begin with. It is possible that he purchased it in another state where he owns property and brought it to NJ. I can agree with you that it is a "victimless crime" but he still broke the law. Should I bring my SBR up to MA, where I do have a sweet log cabin, even though I know it is against MA gun laws? I won't hurt anyone, I promise, but if I get stopped do I deserve the felony conviction? How about if I just bring up some post-ban hi-cap AR magazines? I don't have a FID card, or even a MA LTC...but those government pieces of paper are unconstitutional anyway and besides I am a NC resident now since retiring from the Air Force and the laws here are much more "relaxed" so why should I abide by MA laws when I go up for a visit? I do read the sign "Welcome to MA, firearm possession carries mandatory 2 year sentance" going up Rte. 8 from CT to MA. If I did this and made the paper, I bet I would be called every name associated with a dumbass and comments would fly that I should get everything that I deserve. I've read them here many times before. I don't get the flip-flopping of some people here that say that some guy should get the book thrown at him because he let his kid take an empty shotgun shell hull to school or a guy saw his neighbor cleaning his gun IN HIS OWN HOUSE through an open window or door...saying that these people are stupid and irresponsible and they knew that they broke some idiot law becuase the kid was excited that he went shooting over the weekend or that the neighbor is now scared for his life because the guy next to him ownes a gun. Now Burris comes along and some people are calling him a victim for ILLEGALLY carrying a gun in NYC. Which is it going to be? This isn't about a misdomeanor "doing 60 in a 55 zone"...this is a FELONY offense.

Examples of civil disobedience do not have to include carrying a firearm in a prohibited zone or means. A campus-carry rights group organized an open-holster day a few years ago.

Remember, Burress is *not* being brought up on charges of negligent discharge. He allegedly brought a firearm that he lawfully owned in another state, his property, into another state that prohibits non-residents from carrying firearms. This is an invented crime. He didn't hurt anybody else or anybody else's property. Maybe he damaged the floor tile of the night club, and he should be responsible for its repair. Burress hurt himself and he should pay for any medical service rendered. In brief, nobody was hurt, therefore, this is a victimless crime.

 

[mikem317]

We being Americans do hold the right of self-defense with a firearm, other nations do not recognize this right.

Bingo. All human beings (men) are endowed by their Creator certain unable rights... Not just "Americans". Nor non-residents living in the United States. Every man has these rights, unless they're forfeited during the commission of a crime against fellow man. Other governments wantonly disregard these natural rights.

Americans are unique in this world and we live in the country with the most freedoms. It is a God given right to every man/woman to defend themselves, it is our (recognized) right as Americans to use a firearm in that defense. Non-citizens do not fall under our constitution as they are not Americans, again it is our unique right.

I think you might be alone in your worldview.

We live in one nation, all similarly plagued by a single, totalitarian, almost totally socialist from any definition, government. In fact, all men can defend themselves. The Bill of Rights is not exhaustive; Even if the Second Amendment were to suddenly evaporate through executive or legislative decree, every man still has the right to self-preservation.

I do remember students wearing empty holsters, but I would call that a protest. They were voicing their opinions without breaking any laws. Civil disobedience typically involves some type of law breaking. The only things that I can think of at the moment is the civil rights movement in the 50's-60's. Riding in the front of the bus, drinking from the "whites only" fountain, etc. Although asenine & idiotic, there were laws in place to keep segregation but some, and then many, participated in civil disobedience to change the laws they were breaking.

Sure, what laws do you want to break in your little civil disobedience experiment?

Back to Burris...yes he was charged with carrying a firearm in NYC, which is against the law unless you have a nearly impossible to get CCW permit. The ND isn't an issue and is such that he didn't get charged for that. From what I read, the handgun in question (did they find it yet???) wasn't even registered in NJ where Burris LIVES. My take is that the handgun wasn't lawfully owned to begin with. It is possible that he purchased it in another state where he owns property and brought it to NJ. I can agree with you that it is a "victimless crime" but he still broke the law. Should I bring my SBR up to MA, where I do have a sweet log cabin, even though I know it is against MA gun laws? I won't hurt anyone, I promise, but if I get stopped do I deserve the felony conviction? How about if I just bring up some post-ban hi-cap AR magazines? I don't have a FID card, or even a MA LTC...but those government pieces of paper are unconstitutional anyway and besides I am a NC resident now since retiring from the Air Force and the laws here are much more "relaxed" so why should I abide by MA laws when I go up for a visit? I do read the sign "Welcome to MA, firearm possession carries mandatory 2 year sentance" going up Rte. 8 from CT to MA. If I did this and made the paper, I bet I would be called every name associated with a dumbass and comments would fly that I should get everything that I deserve. I've read them here many times before. I don't get the flip-flopping of some people here that say that some guy should get the book thrown at him because he let his kid take an empty shotgun shell hull to school or a guy saw his neighbor cleaning his gun IN HIS OWN HOUSE through an open window or door...saying that these people are stupid and irresponsible and they knew that they broke some idiot law becuase the kid was excited that he went shooting over the weekend or that the neighbor is now scared for his life because the guy next to him ownes a gun. Now Burris comes along and some people are calling him a victim for ILLEGALLY carrying a gun in NYC. Which is it going to be? This isn't about a misdomeanor "doing 60 in a 55 zone"...this is a FELONY offense.

I believe "Burress" owned the firearm in question and it was registered in Florida or New Jersey. It's his property, I don't think there's any doubt there. Of course, we're only privy to what the media reports. So take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, I concur that he broke the law; Burress failed to get the special, magical government permission slip which, coincidentally is impossible to obtain for a non-resident. Yes, he's clearly been victimized by Bloomberg and the rest of the gun-grabbers. Even if you have a lawfully owned firearm, that is your property, you are explicitly prohibited from entering New York with said firearm. But self-preservation is a natural right and individuals are going to carry weapons on them to defend themselves from aggressors.

The proper designation of Burress' alleged crime is meaningless. It doesn't matter if it's a misdemeanor or a felony. He carried his own property into the state of New York without the permission of the government. And it's his lawfully owned firearm. And he was licensed, and AFAIK, doesn't have a violent past or mentally unfit to carry a firearm.

"Should I bring my SBR up to MA, where I do have a sweet log cabin, even though I know it is against MA gun laws? I won't hurt anyone, I promise, but if I get stopped do I deserve the felony conviction?" It's up to every individual to make up their own mind. If you want to carry your SBR to Massachusetts, despite the fact you may be prohibited, is up to you. Why are you prohibited? It's your property, right? No, IMHO, you don't deserve a felony charge for carrying your property (firearms) into Massachusetts and you didn't use it to hurt or kill another individual (the exception, of course, being legitimate self-defense purposes).

 

[Mattitude]

I don't think that you understood it when I said that EVERYONE has a God given right to defend themselves, be it a stick, knife or bare hands. Now as Americans have the 2nd Amendment that says that we can use a firearm as a defensive tool to our God given right to self defense. Tell me another nation that specifically states that their citizens can use a firearm in defense. Non-American citizens do NOT fall under the protections and rights of the US Constitution. It is for the American citizens, not the world's population. Me with a civil disobedience experiment? No, I don't participate in those activities as they typically involve getting arrested. I support grass roots organizations and actually hand write letters to my elected officials. Back to "Burress" (thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name). Just because his property is legal in one state doesn't mean that it is automatically legal in another. We as responsible firearms owners know at least our local laws and if traveling we research the laws of our destination. We have the law of peacable journey so it is legal to drive through NYC, DC, Chicago as long as our weapons are unloaded and properly stored. To be ignorant of a law isn't an excuse of it and because it is damn near impossible to get a CCW permit for NYC doesn't mean that you can carry there anyway because it is your God given right for self preservation. A firearm isn't the only tool to protect your life with. I believe it was you who asked in another thread about the legal way to carry your handgun in NH (I believe) and how to properly store it in your vehicle. I don't understand why you are asking about the law when it is your property, legally owned in MA and you saying that Burress can carry his property anywhere he wants in the name of defense. It sounds like that you are vocal about your beliefs but practice the total opposite. Now as much as I would like to take my SBR up to the cabin, I know the concequences aren't worth the troubles. I also agreed to abide by the laws set forth when I submitted my form 1 (SBR) and form 4 (suppressor) to the NFA branch. I agreed to abide by the laws when I applied for my NC CCW permit. If you break the law then you pay the price and it doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. It's pretty simple.

Bingo. All human beings (men) are endowed by their Creator certain unable rights... Not just "Americans". Nor non-residents living in the United States. Every man has these rights, unless they're forfeited during the commission of a crime against fellow man. Other governments wantonly disregard these natural rights.



I think you might be alone in your worldview.

We live in one nation, all similarly plagued by a single, totalitarian, almost totally socialist from any definition, government. In fact, all men can defend themselves. The Bill of Rights is not exhaustive; Even if the Second Amendment were to suddenly evaporate through executive or legislative decree, every man still has the right to self-preservation.



Sure, what laws do you want to break in your little civil disobedience experiment?



I believe "Burress" owned the firearm in question and it was registered in Florida or New Jersey. It's his property, I don't think there's any doubt there. Of course, we're only privy to what the media reports. So take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, I concur that he broke the law; Burress failed to get the special, magical government permission slip which, coincidentally is impossible to obtain for a non-resident. Yes, he's clearly been victimized by Bloomberg and the rest of the gun-grabbers. Even if you have a lawfully owned firearm, that is your property, you are explicitly prohibited from entering New York with said firearm. But self-preservation is a natural right and individuals are going to carry weapons on them to defend themselves from aggressors.

The proper designation of Burress' alleged crime is meaningless. It doesn't matter if it's a misdemeanor or a felony. He carried his own property into the state of New York without the permission of the government. And it's his lawfully owned firearm. And he was licensed, and AFAIK, doesn't have a violent past or mentally unfit to carry a firearm.

"Should I bring my SBR up to MA, where I do have a sweet log cabin, even though I know it is against MA gun laws? I won't hurt anyone, I promise, but if I get stopped do I deserve the felony conviction?" It's up to every individual to make up their own mind. If you want to carry your SBR to Massachusetts, despite the fact you may be prohibited, is up to you. Why are you prohibited? It's your property, right? No, IMHO, you don't deserve a felony charge for carrying your property (firearms) into Massachusetts and you didn't use it to hurt or kill another individual (the exception, of course, being legitimate self-defense purposes).

 

[mikem317]

I don't think that you understood it when I said that EVERYONE has a God given right to defend themselves, be it a stick, knife or bare hands. Now as Americans have the 2nd Amendment that says that we can use a firearm as a defensive tool to our God given right to self defense. Tell me another nation that specifically states that their citizens can use a firearm in defense.

I thought you might have contradicted yourself. There may be other nations that specifically state that their citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms" or similar language, but I'm not sure. What's clear, is that a majority of the world's governments impinge on their subject's rights.

What is clear is that every human has a Creator-given right to self-defense. Even lower animals from cellular species to our primate relatives practice self-defense. Of course, humans are also endowed with intelligence to make tools (read: guns) to provide for a means (read: self-preservation).

Non-American citizens do NOT fall under the protections and rights of the US Constitution. It is for the American citizens, not the world's population.

Why not every inhabitant of the United States?

Me with a civil disobedience experiment? No, I don't participate in those activities as they typically involve getting arrested. I support grass roots organizations and actually hand write letters to my elected officials.

Good. Thank you for doing your part!

Back to "Burress" (thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name). Just because his property is legal in one state doesn't mean that it is automatically legal in another. We as responsible firearms owners know at least our local laws and if traveling we research the laws of our destination. We have the law of peacable journey so it is legal to drive through NYC, DC, Chicago as long as our weapons are unloaded and properly stored. To be ignorant of a law isn't an excuse of it and because it is damn near impossible to get a CCW permit for NYC doesn't mean that you can carry there anyway because it is your God given right for self preservation. A firearm isn't the only tool to protect your life with. I believe it was you who asked in another thread about the legal way to carry your handgun in NH (I believe) and how to properly store it in your vehicle. I don't understand why you are asking about the law when it is your property, legally owned in MA and you saying that Burress can carry his property anywhere he wants in the name of defense. It sounds like that you are vocal about your beliefs but practice the total opposite. Now as much as I would like to take my SBR up to the cabin, I know the concequences aren't worth the troubles. I also agreed to abide by the laws set forth when I submitted my form 1 (SBR) and form 4 (suppressor) to the NFA branch. I agreed to abide by the laws when I applied for my NC CCW permit. If you break the law then you pay the price and it doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. It's pretty simple.

So if I purchased a car in Massachusetts, where it's registered and then drive into New York, it can be immediately confiscated? Subsitute any other piece of property for the word "gun" and then New York's Draconian gun-ban policies become very clear.

To be ignorant of a law isn't an excuse of it and because it is damn near impossible to get a CCW permit for NYC doesn't mean that you can carry there anyway because it is your God given right for self preservation. A firearm isn't the only tool to protect your life with.

You can't carry there because it's illegal. And people want protection; they want to be able to provide a means for self-preservation. So some gun owners, who are not dangerous, and are not insane, will carry. Therefore it behooves the government of New York to provide some relief to this end. I'm sure people like you, me and Mr. Burress would probably seek such relief via permit. Yes, guns are an excellent self-defense tool. I can't think of something better. Clearly, pepper spray and knives can be effective, but firearms an order of magnitude more effective.

I believe it was you who asked in another thread about the legal way to carry your handgun in NH (I believe) and how to properly store it in your vehicle. I don't understand why you are asking about the law when it is your property, legally owned in MA and you saying that Burress can carry his property anywhere he wants in the name of defense. It sounds like that you are vocal about your beliefs but practice the total opposite.

No. I only commented with another poster about the turnaround time with non-resident New Hampshire P/R licenses. And New Hampshire provides a means for peaceable, law-abiding gun owners to carry firearms in their state. New York does not provide this. A non-resident, like Mr. Burress, cannot obtain the government's special permission slip because they offer no such service. You're shit out of luck so to speak. Yes, I can carry my property (gun) in New Hampshire.

Now as much as I would like to take my SBR up to the cabin, I know the concequences aren't worth the troubles. I also agreed to abide by the laws set forth when I submitted my form 1 (SBR) and form 4 (suppressor) to the NFA branch. I agreed to abide by the laws when I applied for my NC CCW permit. If you break the law then you pay the price and it doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. It's pretty simple.

Fair enough. I agree the costs outweigh the benefits. And yes, they're your property, but this scopes out to the 1934 and 1968 bills. This is out of scope since we're not talking about NFA or Class III items. We're talking about semi-automatic handguns.

This just seems to be a witch hunt.