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

[GSG]

Like the saying "a bullet doesn't have a name on it."

So this guy was Mexican carrying a gun illegally, accidentally shoots himself, and is being charged.

Yes, IMNSHO he's a thug or thug wannabe, drinking in a club with an illegal gun. Yes, the law is un-Constitutional, but the gun was in fact illegal.

Look at Bernie Goetz. Very average guy, put in the hospital twice by violent muggers on the subway, applies for an LTC, was turned down. He broke the law, carried an illegal gun and defended his life. He's alive, he'd probably be better off if he'd kept his mouth shut with the press and the cops, but he's still alive.

Howard Stern, Bill Cosby, Steven Tyler, police officers are some people whose lives are worth protecting in NYC. Very few others can.

Like it or not, the Constitution doesn't only protect the gun rights of constantly intelligent upstanding citizens who carry guns in holsters.

My sincere wish is that his case changes some laws, but I'd prefer to see someone a little more responsible looking at the head of the case.

 

[mikem317]

It is very, very simple. In NYC, owning a handgun and being able to carry it in public legally, even by the best shooters in the world, could cause some problems.

John Rosenthal, is that you?

But in Manhattan, at most any time of day, there are people EVERYWHERE. If anyone here has been in any part of Manhattan from Canal St in Chinatown up through the upper east and west sides, at any time of day except 4 AM, you know that there are people EVERYWHERE.

Imagine what could happen, for those of you whom have experience with Manhattan, if a law-abiding citizen tried to defend him/herself with a handgun at Times Square on a typical late-afternoon? Or at Penn Station? Grand Central? Columbus Circle? The lower west side?

Do criminals take that into consideration too? If you end up using your firearm in self-defense and while discharging a weapon and hitting a bystander, you're liable to be charged and probably sued.

My Lord… One stray bullet and an innocent is wounded/killed. Maybe more than one. There are simply too many people about to have a clear "beyond the target".

Your thoughts seem more steeped in mysticism and generalities. I understand that New York is a rather densely populous metropolis (probably rivaling for top spot in the world's most). But this sets a dangerous precedent: Lawmakers could fallaciously use population density as a variable to gun licensing processes. And by who's definition? I'm sure somebody with the last name Oakley shouldn't have a problem in this environment. What's more important, is that the criminal element would not take population density (or any other civil organization characteristic) into consideration when packing heat.

I for one do not condone keeping people from having the ability to defend themselves in ANY place or situation. But NYC (Manhattan) is certainly a special case, simply because of it's population density. Maybe we should separate Manhattan from the other 4 boroughs when it comes to gun ownership?

Ah, the old exception bit. "Special cases" are currently on display on Capitol Hill right now. AIG, GM, Ford, Citi are some other "exceptions" that were deserving of bailouts, but Circuit City, Tweeter, Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers weren't part of the exception, right?

Bleh, besides…Manhattan is one of the safest places on earth, at any time of day. All you need to do is look really pissed-off, or crazy, and nobody will mess with you. ;-)

It's because they're bitter Yankee fans. They haven't seen a World Series championship in a generation.

 

[jcr]

he would very likely HAVE been issued a carry permit for NYC because he's one of the beautiful people.

Plaxico Burress could not get a licence in NYC becuase his is not a NY resident.

There is no such thing as a non-resident permit in NY.

 

[mikem317]

Plaxico Burress could not get a licence in NYC becuase his is not a NY resident.

There is no such thing as a non-resident permit in NY.

Right. I think he's technically a New Jersey resident.

 

[drgrant]

Plaxico Burress could not get a licence in NYC becuase his is not a NY resident.

There is no such thing as a non-resident permit in NY.

For the rich types that get NYC permits residence is just a formality that can be fixed with some cash.

The thing is though, I think even for the "washed" people that can get these licenses, it's still probably a pain in the ass.

-Mike

 

[dwarven1]

Plaxico Burress could not get a licence in NYC becuase his is not a NY resident.

There is no such thing as a non-resident permit in NY.

So what? You think that Steve Tyler lives in NY? He's got a permit.

You still don't get it - carry permits to carry in NYC are NOT issued according to law, but according to who you know.

Unless you're a security guard, of course... and then you're limited to when you're on duty. And to the firearms listed on your permit.

 

[doobie]

Given what I know: Glock in the waistband at a nightclub while drinking. I disagree, he should loose his rights.

The only reason a person should lose their Rights is if they are too dangerous for society and if they too dangerous for society they should not be on the streets. If you are on the streets your Rights Shall Not Be Infringed.

 

[HooVooLoo]

The problem I have with this statement is this "problem" you speak of- not having a backstop, it could exist anywhere. NYC, Manhattan, whatever, is not "special" in this regard.

I argue that it IS special, with regard to what I indicated was "population density". I have been to many major cities here on terra-firma, and I have to tell you that at certain times of the day/week/year, Manhattan has people everywhere like kids jammed into a phone booth or VW bug. I wrote what I did in the context of actually having spent many years in Manhattan, both living there and visiting. I have encountered no other place in my travels that comes close to how insanely busy the place is during certain periods.

All it would take is one fool who loaded his CC piece with FMJ to try to defend himself in Times Square on New Year's eve, and you've given the gun-control freaks all the power they need to make the oppressive gun laws in NYC even MORE oppressive.

By this logic, that means you probably favor banning guns in shopping malls too, around christmastime- you know, because there's too much of a chance that a stray bullet from a defender could hit an innocent bystander... Those malls have a pretty high density of bullet tampons per square foot, too.

I'll overlook this offense to my character because you probably realize neither who I am nor what I stand for. I do not favor banning guns ANYWHERE. I do not even favor banning guns from law-abiding citizens in Manhattan. I simply stated that Manhattan should be handled in a "special " or "unique" fashion, simply because of all the tangible and intangible characteristics that make it so different from the rest of the world. It truly is a different place. Go visit the city (Manhattan) during a holiday, and imagine yourself CCW. Then imagine what could happen if you had to use it to defend yourself. You would then immediatley recognize that unless a person is very disciplined in firearm ownership, very bad things could happen that would affect not just you and the bystanders, but all gun owners in NY.

And Shopping Malls? Hell no, we SHOULD be carrying there, because aside from the one or two wackos that might frequent them and cause problems during a typical decade, the chances of them striking in the mall itself is about zero. They will wait for you in the parking lot, where you parked in the dimly-lit section.

By your logic, NYPD shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in Manhattan either. Last I knew their Glocks didn't have
special, "bad guy only" seeking bullets in them that couldn't possibly hurt an innocent bystander.

-Mike

When was the last time you ever heard of a case of a police officer in Manhattan having to discharge his firearm? I certainly cannot recall one. It is because, as I posted originally, Manhattan truly IS safe, simply because of all the people about. Someone who wants to rob you at knifepoint isn't going to do it where there are lots of people around, and as we have established, there are TONS of them in Manhattan.

I feel the most positive thing that could happen to NYC would be for them to allow people to carry. But OPENLY! Why do criminals never mess with cops in NY? Because they see the cops' guns, AND they see that the potential victims around them can see them as well. The criminals do think of this, when choosing a victim, I am sure. The cops are everywhere, just like the people. The criminals will head way north towards the Bronx, or perhaps hang on the very-upper west side. Or by the waterfronts. Or down at the Battery/financial district, where there are very few peeps around after the markets close.

If law-abiding folks were allowed to carry openly in Manhattan, nothing would change in crime statistics, except for the one about subway muggings late at night. THEY would go way down, for sure!!!

In closing...NO NO NO! I am all for expanding our right to carry in places like NYC. But what we would really need to make it a success is, perhaps, a requirement that we assure that those peeps we grant licenses to for carry in Manhattan truly understand what safe and responsible gun ownership means. Extra training? Limit the self-defense rounds to hollow-points? (Of course, with proper training, there would not be a need for this restriction since anyone with the proper training would know that you simply do NOT use FMJ for self-defense).

If we are not vigilant, we could be shooting ourselves in the foot on this issue. (No pun intended). (K, well, maybe it was. Hehe! )

Hoo

 

[mikem317]

I argue that it IS special, with regard to what I indicated was "population density". I have been to many major cities here on terra-firma, and I have to tell you that at certain times of the day/week/year, Manhattan has people everywhere like kids jammed into a phone booth or VW bug. I wrote what I did in the context of actually having spent many years in Manhattan, both living there and visiting. I have encountered no other place in my travels that comes close to how insanely busy the place is during certain periods.

But it doesn't read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, with the exception of density populated metropolises."

Right?

All it would take is one fool who loaded his CC piece with FMJ to try to defend himself in Times Square on New Year's eve, and you've given the gun-control freaks all the power they need to make the oppressive gun laws in NYC even MORE oppressive.

It can't get any worse in New York City than the status quo system. Your example removes responsibility of the action of the individual. If their FMJ rounds passed through a few second-graders or pretty kittens with bow ties, then they ought to be held accountable for shooting them. Albeit, being an unintended target.

I do not favor banning guns ANYWHERE. I do not even favor banning guns from law-abiding citizens in Manhattan. I simply stated that Manhattan should be handled in a "special " or "unique" fashion, simply because of all the tangible and intangible characteristics that make it so different from the rest of the world. It truly is a different place.

This is all Charles Schumer needs: An exception. And then another exception. And then the entire "rule" is now creating exceptions like 1. Too over populated, 2. Populated with too many (fill in ethnic minority) in this area, 3. Too many schools within some arbitrarily assigned radius, etc. It's a slippery slope. And it could expand to exclude people who ought not be excluded.

And Shopping Malls? Hell no, we SHOULD be carrying there, because aside from the one or two wackos that might frequent them and cause problems during a typical decade, the chances of them striking in the mall itself is about zero. They will wait for you in the parking lot, where you parked in the dimly-lit section.

But not in New York City?

When was the last time you ever heard of a case of a police officer in Manhattan having to discharge his firearm? I certainly cannot recall one. It is because, as I posted originally, Manhattan truly IS safe, simply because of all the people about. Someone who wants to rob you at knifepoint isn't going to do it where there are lots of people around, and as we have established, there are TONS of them in Manhattan.

That's immaterial. And just because the press didn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Some quantitative proof would probably add clarity here. The number of times you heard about a shooting is too nebulous to be used for policy discussion.

I feel the most positive thing that could happen to NYC would be for them to allow people to carry. But OPENLY! Why do criminals never mess with cops in NY? Because they see the cops' guns, AND they see that the potential victims around them can see them as well. The criminals do think of this, when choosing a victim, I am sure. The cops are everywhere, just like the people. The criminals will head way north towards the Bronx, or perhaps hang on the very-upper west side. Or by the waterfronts. Or down at the Battery/financial district, where there are very few peeps around after the markets close.

Yes. Peaceable and sane gun owners ought to be able to carry. Openly or via concealment. I'm not sure if the openly-carried sidearm is really why criminals do not engage policemen. They're probably more likely to pray on an uniformed individual that doesn't have a shiny piece of jewelry from the government. Let gun owners decide how they want to carry. Otherwise, it's really none of our business.

You do make an important point here with regards to criminals possibly substituting targets in Manhattan for those in the Bronx. But the various New York City boroughs are in close proximity to each other. Many people work in Manhattan, but live in Queens. Or vice versa. So if the government prohibits peaceable, concealed carry in one borrough, they're effectively prohibiting it in another area. Roughly analogous to the Plaxico Burress witch trial where he's a New Jersey resident but frequenting an establishment in New York City.

If law-abiding folks were allowed to carry openly in Manhattan, nothing would change in crime statistics, except for the one about subway muggings late at night. THEY would go way down, for sure!!!

Or if they were allowed to conceal carry. If conceal carry is permitted, the firearm, by definition is not openly displayed. Thugs in Washington D.C. know that nobody is packing. Therefore they can pick targets with almost total impunity. If concealed carry is permitted widely, there's this *externality* effect.

In closing...NO NO NO! I am all for expanding our right to carry in places like NYC. But what we would really need to make it a success is, perhaps, a requirement that we assure that those peeps we grant licenses to for carry in Manhattan truly understand what safe and responsible gun ownership means. Extra training? Limit the self-defense rounds to hollow-points? (Of course, with proper training, there would not be a need for this restriction since anyone with the proper training would know that you simply do NOT use FMJ for self-defense).

What is safe and responsible gun ownership? Who's definition? Here's a pretty simple one: Don't shoot anybody unless your under attack by an inescapable, imminent threat of bodily injury or death.

No need for extra training. Or limiting ammo sales. Or marksmanship tests.

This is all ancillary hoopla.

 

[Mattitude]

I said this on another forum...Plaxico isn't a champion of firearms rights and I bet that the word "Heller" hasn't come out of his mouth when he turned himself in. He did break the law and he knew exactly what he was doing. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to you...it isn't a pick & choose thing to do. Yes, Heller was a big decision BUT it doesn't nullify existing laws and I do believe that the laws will change but in the meantime the current laws STILL EXIST and apprearantly will be enforced. It would be very foolish of anyone to challange a firearm law and state Heller as your "excuse" of the law. Are these laws unconstutional? I'm sure that they are, but they are supposed to be modified or changed. If it's taking too long for you then contact your elected representitive to see what is going on. I'm not about to try my luck with a felony convition, and that is something that you really don't want.

 

[drgrant]

I have encountered no other place in my travels that comes close to how insanely busy the place is during certain periods.

So aren't parts of Boston, shopping malls, wal marts, and other venues. Again, by your logic, anytime people exceed a given density the rules should change. I still fail to see how Manhattan is somehow special compared to the examples I've mentioned. It has a crapload of people in one place... okay, we get it. Big deal. It doesn't take very much to find a sea of people somewhere. By your logic someone shouldn't carry while attending their local 4th of july parade- because there might be too many people all crowded in one spot to see the parade... You get the picture.

All it would take is one fool who loaded his CC piece with FMJ to try to defend himself in Times Square on New Year's eve, and you've given the gun-control freaks all the power they need to make the oppressive gun laws in NYC even MORE oppressive.

Yeah, because someone trying to stop the madman that probably started the altercation would be such a terrible thing. Would you prefer that nobody be equipped to stop the BG- because heaven forbid, in the process of stopping the BG, you might clip an innocent in the process- so therefore the idea must be completely ignored- even if it is at the cost of lives at the hands of the BG- all because "someone -possibly maybe- could accidentally shoot the wrong person. "

I'll overlook this offense to my character because you probably realize neither who I am nor what I stand for. I do not favor banning guns ANYWHERE. I do not even favor banning guns from law-abiding citizens in Manhattan. I simply stated that Manhattan should be handled in a "special " or "unique" fashion, simply because of all the tangible and intangible characteristics that make it so different from the rest of the world.

Your statements contradict themselves- if you don't support a gun ban, then why are you talking about restrictions on being able to carry a gun in a public place? Sounds very similar to the "reasonable regulations" crud that the antis trot out at random odd intervals. Hint- very little regulation is reasonable, especially when it comes to a citizen being able to carry a gun on a public right of way. The problem with "reasonable regulations" in gun ownership is that often times they barely stay reasonable. What was once a "reasonable" regulation is often taken by an anti gunner and they attempt (and often succeed) at mutating it into something else.

And Shopping Malls? Hell no, we SHOULD be carrying there, because aside from the one or two wackos that might frequent them and cause problems during a typical decade, the chances of them striking in the mall itself is about zero. They will wait for you in the parking lot, where you parked in the dimly-lit section.

One could make the same argument about personal safety in general- that carrying a gun simply isn't necessary because for the average person, especially one that stays alert, and stays out of crappy places, is unlikely to be a victim of violent crime.

The thing is, even if these events are rare, and, statistically probably something like playing an reverse 4 or 5 digit lottery..... guess what... if you go out in public at all, you, and everyone else, have just purchased tickets in this lottery. Even though the chance of winning is small, you're still in the game. Carrying a gun helps to mitigate the possible ill effects of having a ticket constantly in the reverse lottery.

People often use the phrase "the odds are about the same as getting hit by lightning." Well, guess what, even when it comes to lightning, people try to protect things from it despite its rarity... For example antennas and electrical systems have ground rods, surge protectors, and other stuff in use to try to mitigate the effects of lightning strikes. The odds are (relatively) low that these devices will ever see real use; however, if the equipment does get hit, the mitigation measures in play can often reduce or eliminate damage altogether. In regard to "chance" carrying a gun is rather similar- protecting against something that is rare, but certainly not impossible.

The bottom line is that most of us carry a gun because:

-It's our RIGHT to do so.

-We want to be better prepared for the unexpected.

It's really that simple.

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

Doesn't seem to happen frequently, I agree... however, using your logic, then, joe or jane average citizen, quietly concealing a handgun in Manhattan, minding his or her own business, shouldn't pose any "community danger" either. Why are cops "special"?

Even if Manhattan is perfectly safe what if someone is visiting the city and may not be in Manhattan all the time? Why should people who transit Manhattan with a firearm be
forced to lock their guns up or leave them at home? Why should the guy that lives in a shitty part of NYC be forced to leave his gun at home if he wants to go across town? None of what you're suggesting here makes much sense.

I feel the most positive thing that could happen to NYC would be for them to allow people to carry. But OPENLY!

That'll only be 1000 times less likely to happen then CCW.

In closing...NO NO NO! I am all for expanding our right to carry in places like NYC. But what we would really need to make it a success is, perhaps, a requirement that we assure that those peeps we grant licenses to for carry in Manhattan truly understand what safe and responsible gun ownership means.

Are you going to suggest that a CCW holder pass the FAM shooting test once a month to carry in Manhattan? The level of insanity required to get any kind of a license in the
city is absurd to begin with, never mind adding another training requirement. Begging to the city for a "privilege" which should really be an automatic right is bad enough as it is, without having to jump through another flaming hoop. "Training requirement" is just snake oil talk for an infringement of a right.

(Of course, with proper training, there would not be a need for this restriction since anyone with the proper training would know that you simply do NOT use FMJ for self-defense).

You must have limited understanding of terminal wound ballistics if you think that a JHP cannot overpen a target. Hell, NYPD has had one, probably more incidents where officers were hit/killed by other officer's bullets that overpenetrated- and NYPD uses one of the best, if not THE best 9mm JHP loading in existence, the 124 gn Speer GDHP. The problem is in wound ballistics any load which has a high likelihood of non-overpenetration is going to be a crappier stopper than one which penetrates 10"+ and expands properly. This is why LEOs rarely, if ever, carry things like glaser safety slugs, etc... because often they simply will not stop a BG fast enough to make a difference.

While FMJ is most certainly going to be considerably worse, there are no guarantees- any bullet capable of doing its job is also capable of overpenetrating the target. If a JHP
doesn't expand for some reason, BTW, it basically acts like an FMJ bullet does anyways.

Again, this whole "backstop" problem you're talking about is one that gun carriers face in many locales Manhattan is not special or unique in this regard. We're always going to be held responsible for the bullets that get launched out of our guns, to one degree or another, and one has to make a snap judgment as to whether or not the environment is conducive to deploying a firearm or not. If it's not, then we have to do something else, it's literally that simple.

FWIW, I actually agree that if NY had a shall issue system with a statutory training requirement that it would be an improvement over the existing system, even if that training requirement was absurd (eg, say it required like 24 hours of classroom/range training and quals/shooting test once every 2 years). That being said, those requirements are still anti-gun in nature, not to mention discriminatory, and unconstitutional. EG, while this is an improvement, in other regards it's not much better than trying to polish a turd. It will still look like a lump of feces, except that it will smell better to the few people that can afford the time and money to comply with the BS training requirements. It will still ultimately limit the amount of people who can carry guns in NYS/NYC to some number which is going to be way smaller than what it would be under something like a simplistic NH or PA style permit system, or better yet, a VT style one- eg, just give people the ability to exercise their friggan rights!

-Mike

 

[Snapshot]

It doesn't matter if you like the law or even agree with the law. The bottom line is the fact that it is the law...so you obey it until such time that it is no longer the law.

Interesting point of view. How about this: If you were on the Jury, would you convict him or overturn the unjust law by finding him not guilty via jury nullification?

 

[jhblaze1]

It doesn't matter if you like the law or even agree with the law. The bottom line is the fact that it is the law...so you obey it until such time that it is no longer the law. It is the duty of every good American to question any law that limits their rights as this does. It is also their right to challange it and work to change it. But until you are successful in doing so it is still the law and you must comply with it or pay the penalty.

And he has proven his moron status anyways, why chance a problem by carrying where it is illegal (and he knew it), carrying a glock in the waistband of a pair of sweats is just stupid and an accidental discharge waiting to happen, drinking while carrying an illegal concealed handgun is a pair of striped pajamas in your size being held by a new friend called Bubba One Tooth, guaranteed!

So you've never heard of civil disobedience then right? You realize that this country wouldn't even exist if our founding fathers obeyed they law. Your blind obedience to all things dubbed "the law" is scary. When they pass a law that says you can't eat steak, are you going to obey that as well?

Yes, Plaxico is an idiot. Going out drinking with a loaded gun tucked into your sweatpants is beyond idiotic. And in no way should his status get him off. But, as gun owners, we should all be rallying around Mr. Burress right now. We have someone with tons of money who has standing to challenge the BS laws. Rooting for him to go to jail is the wrong way to go IMO.

While carrying the way he did was stupid, let's not forget that it's our RIGHT to carry any gun any god damned way we see fit.

 

[Mattitude]

Civil disobedience isn't the way to go with firearms laws. Is it right to assume by your repsonse that you just ignore any law that you don't agree with on principle? Would it be safe to assume (if you are a MA resident...I don't know) you own post-ban hi-capacity magazines because some idiot law, and it is stupid and baseless, and not only openly use them but announce the fact that you are possessing such devices? Do you open carry because it is your belief that it is your God given right as an American to do so? Do you excessively speed because you feel that the driving laws hold you back? I would like to know what YOU have done in defiance to current firearms laws based on principle. If there was a law against eating steak for example and it was a felony to do so, I wouldn't go out and eat a steak just because I don't agree with the law. If I was passionate about it, I would contact the law makers and special interest groups to change it. I for one will not jepordize my livelyhood, my family and my freedom for a felony conviction. I said it before, Burris didn't do what he did because he is some type of patriot of firearms rights. I've never seen him in the NRA magazine, never seen him on any shooting sports TV show or magazine or even make a statement about the Heller decision. I would even question how much range time the man takes a month or even what SAFETY training he has undergone. I wouldn't rally around him and I don't believe that anyone should because he was very IRRESPONSIBLE and IGNORED THE LAWS. I for one don't want to be associated with such a careless and reckless person as Mr. Burris. I take immense pride in my training, ability and safety that I apply to firearms. Why would I want someone to think that I am just like Mr. Burris and don't know what the hell I am doing?

So you've never heard of civil disobedience then right? You realize that this country wouldn't even exist if our founding fathers obeyed they law. Your blind obedience to all things dubbed "the law" is scary. When they pass a law that says you can't eat steak, are you going to obey that as well?

Yes, Plaxico is an idiot. Going out drinking with a loaded gun tucked into your sweatpants is beyond idiotic. And in no way should his status get him off. But, as gun owners, we should all be rallying around Mr. Burress right now. We have someone with tons of money who has standing to challenge the BS laws. Rooting for him to go to jail is the wrong way to go IMO.

While carrying the way he did was stupid, let's not forget that it's our RIGHT to carry any gun any god damned way we see fit.

 

[hminsky]

They should let him off with probation on the gun charges, and give him three years in prison for having the name Plaxico.

 

[Gabe]

H. L. Mencken nailed it when he offered this observation:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Burress is the scoundrel here, and in order to protect the sovereignty of the rest of us, we need to protect his, even though he is an idiot.

 

[jhblaze1]

Civil disobedience isn't the way to go with firearms laws. Is it right to assume by your repsonse that you just ignore any law that you don't agree with on principle?

Sometimes, yes.

Would it be safe to assume (if you are a MA resident...I don't know) you own post-ban hi-capacity magazines because some idiot law, and it is stupid and baseless, and not only openly use them but announce the fact that you are possessing such devices?

Umm, no I don't currently have any post ban hi caps, nor would I announce it if i did.

Do you open carry because it is your belief that it is your God given right as an American to do so? Do you excessively speed because you feel that the driving laws hold you back?

No, open carry will just result in you being the first person targeted. I do speed pretty much all the time.

I would like to know what YOU have done in defiance to current firearms laws based on principle.

Like i'd post that here.

If there was a law against eating steak for example and it was a felony to do so, I wouldn't go out and eat a steak just because I don't agree with the law. If I was passionate about it, I would contact the law makers and special interest groups to change it.

While you'd be doing all that, I'd be eating steak. I have rights and those rights aren't granted by corrupt legislators. So yes, in short I do break laws I don't agree with. If you want to be a sheep and beg for your god given inherent rights then go for it.

I for one will not jepordize my livelyhood, my family and my freedom for a felony conviction. I said it before, Burris didn't do what he did because he is some type of patriot of firearms rights. I've never seen him in the NRA magazine, never seen him on any shooting sports TV show or magazine or even make a statement about the Heller decision. I would even question how much range time the man takes a month or even what SAFETY training he has undergone. I wouldn't rally around him and I don't believe that anyone should because he was very IRRESPONSIBLE and IGNORED THE LAWS. I for one don't want to be associated with such a careless and reckless person as Mr. Burris. I take immense pride in my training, ability and safety that I apply to firearms. Why would I want someone to think that I am just like Mr. Burris and don't know what the hell I am doing?

So people should only be allowed to have guns if they meet your minimum range time threshold? Who said he was a champion 2A patriot? I didn't. I just see an opportunity here where someone with the money to challenge this in the higher courts could do so, and you are looking down your nose at someone while defending absurd penalties for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with. FYI some people get guns because they actually want to protect themselves and believe that that is more important than jumping through a bunch of unconstitutional laws to apply for a permit that he would have been denied.

I don't live in Washington DC or Chicago or San Fran or any other city that flat out bans(ed) handgun ownership, but if I did live there I'd have a gun anyway. I'd rather drop a home invader and face charges than get killed.

 

[Mattitude]

Well, for someone who believes in standing up for your rights and thumbing your nose at laws you don't seem to do much in the way of making laws the way they should be. You sound like an irresponsible person as you knowingly break laws that are felonies just in the name of principle. I never said that I was a "sheep" or that there is a requirement for "range time" to justify ownership, you just totally missed the point. It seems to me or any other reasonable person (who would be on a jury panel) would see that Plaxico acted no only irresponsibly, but broken the law that pretty much the majority of firearms owners already know. Do you actually think that defying firearms laws, which are mostly felonies, helps a 2A cause? To defend Plaxico saying that he was in the right because Heller says so won't go anywhere. If he actually was purposely defying NYC law BECAUSE of Heller, then he would've AT LEAST used a holster. It appears that you talk pretty big about what your rights are, but when it comes down to it...it's just talk. I will continue to follow current firearms laws BUT support organizations to make things the way they should be. Anything else is just foolish and if/when you do get caught knowingly breaking the law I believe that your defense won't get you anywhere, except a bit in debt.

Sometimes, yes.



Umm, no I don't currently have any post ban hi caps, nor would I announce it if i did.

No, open carry will just result in you being the first person targeted. I do speed pretty much all the time.


Like i'd post that here.

While you'd be doing all that, I'd be eating steak. I have rights and those rights aren't granted by corrupt legislators. So yes, in short I do break laws I don't agree with. If you want to be a sheep and beg for your god given inherent rights then go for it.



So people should only be allowed to have guns if they meet your minimum range time threshold? Who said he was a champion 2A patriot? I didn't. I just see an opportunity here where someone with the money to challenge this in the higher courts could do so, and you are looking down your nose at someone while defending absurd penalties for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with. FYI some people get guns because they actually want to protect themselves and believe that that is more important than jumping through a bunch of unconstitutional laws to apply for a permit that he would have been denied.

I don't live in Washington DC or Chicago or San Fran or any other city that flat out bans(ed) handgun ownership, but if I did live there I'd have a gun anyway. I'd rather drop a home invader and face charges than get killed.

 

[Garys]

And there's another dimension of the whole "body guard" thing. Not only is this a possibility reserved for the top-shelf wealthy; but if Burress isn't able to get a firearms permit, how the hell is his body guards going to?

Hire local people who have permits. They exist. High profile people like him, especially those in sports or entertainment, are always in the public eye. One of the trade offs is that they give up some freedom to go where they want when the want. No different than Paul Pierce hanging out at Europa some years back. They can afford to entertain people in their homes or rent private clubs. They can afford body guards, they can afford drivers. None of them should be in situations where they need to carry a weapon or drive drunk. Some of them, especially the athletes, just can't leave their old neighborhoods behind them.

Plaxico should face the same penalty that you or I would if we were arrested there. If he is given special consideration there is no chance the law will ever change.

There should be few restrictions on a lawful citizens ability to carry for self defense anywhere anytime. Which, you might think contradicts my first paragraph. It doesn't because celebrities are different because they are celebrities.

This wasn't an act of civil disobedience by Plaxico, it was just plain old lawlessness. We run a risk by defending such reckless behavior.

 

[Gabe]

...We run a risk by defending such reckless behavior.

I believe to the contrary. Here is a case involving a famous athlete, so one of the most difficult things to do when changing peoples minds is done - getting their attention. Now would be a good time to teach people what freedom means; in this case it means that if you do something stupid you may very well shoot yourself. I don't know why the guy whose kid shot himself has already received his punishment, but Burress with a self-inflicted leg wound hasn't. It's enough that he shot himself. Let him go.

 

[Mattitude]

Just because he shot himself doesn't excuse him from any punishment. He committed a felony and should be convicted with a felony and carry that with him for the rest of his life. Wether he "buys" his way out of prison, she should still get fined and slapped w/the felony conviction. I tell you what, it would be a totally different story if this happend to Tom Selleck. That man actually fights for OUR freedoms, is trained and follows safety rules w/firearms. Plaxico did everything wrong, and because he is Plaxico I'm sure he believed that the laws don't apply to him because he is a high profile sports figure. Plaxico gives lawful citizens/firearm owners a bad image.

I believe to the contrary. Here is a case involving a famous athlete, so one of the most difficult things to do when changing peoples minds is done - getting their attention. Now would be a good time to teach people what freedom means; in this case it means that if you do something stupid you may very well shoot yourself. I don't know why the guy whose kid shot himself has already received his punishment, but Burress with a self-inflicted leg wound hasn't. It's enough that he shot himself. Let him go.

 

[Gabe]

Just because he shot himself doesn't excuse him from any punishment. He committed a felony and should be convicted with a felony and carry that with him for the rest of his life. Wether he "buys" his way out of prison, she should still get fined and slapped w/the felony conviction. I tell you what, it would be a totally different story if this happend to Tom Selleck. That man actually fights for OUR freedoms, is trained and follows safety rules w/firearms. Plaxico did everything wrong, and because he is Plaxico I'm sure he believed that the laws don't apply to him because he is a high profile sports figure. Plaxico gives lawful citizens/firearm owners a bad image.

Let me again quote Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

I grant that Burress is a "scoundrel." But human liberty is more important than whether he gets slapped for being a dolt, so I defend him. Apart from the invented concept of "felony," this guy simply mishandled his gun, and shot himself for it. This is the fabled "hard way" to learn. We don't need "punishment" for this.

 

[jhblaze1]

Well, for someone who believes in standing up for your rights and thumbing your nose at laws you don't seem to do much in the way of making laws the way they should be. You sound like an irresponsible person as you knowingly break laws that are felonies just in the name of principle.

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.

I never said that I was a "sheep" or that there is a requirement for "range time" to justify ownership, you just totally missed the point.

The definition of a sheep is someone who blindly gives up there rights and who is herded by the almightly law

It seems to me or any other reasonable person (who would be on a jury panel) would see that Plaxico acted no only irresponsibly, but broken the law that pretty much the majority of firearms owners already know. Do you actually think that defying firearms laws, which are mostly felonies, helps a 2A cause?

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.

To defend Plaxico saying that he was in the right because Heller says so won't go anywhere. If he actually was purposely defying NYC law BECAUSE of Heller, then he would've AT LEAST used a holster.

Plaxico is an idiot, and I'm pretty sure I've stated that in this thread

It appears that you talk pretty big about what your rights are, but when it comes down to it...it's just talk.

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 will continue to follow current firearms laws BUT support organizations to make things the way they should be. Anything else is just foolish and if/when you do get caught knowingly breaking the law I believe that your defense won't get you anywhere, except a bit in debt.

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?

 

[mikem317]

Hire local people who have permits. They exist. High profile people like him, especially those in sports or entertainment, are always in the public eye. One of the trade offs is that they give up some freedom to go where they want when the want. No different than Paul Pierce hanging out at Europa some years back. They can afford to entertain people in their homes or rent private clubs. They can afford body guards, they can afford drivers. None of them should be in situations where they need to carry a weapon or drive drunk. Some of them, especially the athletes, just can't leave their old neighborhoods behind them.

Plaxico should face the same penalty that you or I would if we were arrested there. If he is given special consideration there is no chance the law will ever change.

There should be few restrictions on a lawful citizens ability to carry for self defense anywhere anytime. Which, you might think contradicts my first paragraph. It doesn't because celebrities are different because they are celebrities.

This wasn't an act of civil disobedience by Plaxico, it was just plain old lawlessness. We run a risk by defending such reckless behavior.

Fair enough. But Plaxico Burress shouldn't be obligated to have bodyguards. Sure, it's an option for him, or me, or you, but I'd rather take a more affordable route and pack my own gun.

You know that Burress is only being brought up on charges of carrying an unregistered weapon, right? The negligent discharge, AFAIK, wasn't even material. Yup, you need to carry a pretty piece of paper, a permission slip, from the government. That's it. Burress didn't have the government permission slip so the government got into a tizzy.

Burress should have to pay for any property damage done to the bar's floor and nothing more because none of us should be required to have government permission to carry a gun; Insofar you're not a felon, mental defective or ex-felon (IMHO) or child, then you should be able to carry. Just like in Vermont.

 

[mikem317]

Just because he shot himself doesn't excuse him from any punishment. He committed a felony and should be convicted with a felony and carry that with him for the rest of his life. Wether he "buys" his way out of prison, she should still get fined and slapped w/the felony conviction. I tell you what, it would be a totally different story if this happend to Tom Selleck. That man actually fights for OUR freedoms, is trained and follows safety rules w/firearms. Plaxico did everything wrong, and because he is Plaxico I'm sure he believed that the laws don't apply to him because he is a high profile sports figure. Plaxico gives lawful citizens/firearm owners a bad image.

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.

 

[Slim]

Let me again quote Mencken:I grant that Burress is a "scoundrel." But human liberty is more important than whether he gets slapped for being a dolt, so I defend him. Apart from the invented concept of "felony," this guy simply mishandled his gun, and shot himself for it. This is the fabled "hard way" to learn. We don't need "punishment" for this.

Disagree totally. Bernie Goetz, for sure. Plaxico...NFW. He's a pi$$ poor example of a responsible gun owner and the media will have a field day with this one. Plaxico just handed them yet another bat. You really want to give them the chance to beat on us all with it?

I'm a responsible and law abiding gun owner and value my fragile 2A rights too much to hook my cart to this horse. Sorry. Let him hang.

 

[LT1MCSS]

Plain and simple this guy did something very stupid and he is going to pay the price. I read an article yesterday about the ongoing investing. From what i read, he stuck the gun in his waistband with no holster. The type of pants he was described to have been wearing were more of a running style with an elastic waistband so no belt was used.

The article stated the gun started to fall down his pants. he went to grab the gun and pulled the trigger. The gun went off, and then fell on the floor.

Aside from the fact that just having the gun was a felony, he could have easily avoided the situation by properly holstering his gun.

I was at a gun shop earlier this year talking to a guy. He was saying he carries a .45 on him. Since he was a larger guy usually he would just stick the gun in his waistband. One day while walking through home depot with a friend of his, the gun fell out of his pants onto the floor. No one saw it, the gun didn't go off, but it was a bad idea......imo

As far as licensing or no-licensing goes, it is nice that VT doesn't require any license as long as you are not a felon or have a mental disorder. Honestly, I think there should be a federal license that allows you to carry in all 50 states.

It is ridiculous, the background checks go through the feds anyway so why shouldn't you be able to carry in all in 50 states. Instead I have to carry every license on me everywhere I go. I think they should do the same thing with driver's licenses. There should be a federal US drivers license and carry permit.

 

[mikem317]

Disagree totally. Bernie Goetz, for sure. Plaxico...NFW. He's a pi$$ poor example of a responsible gun owner and the media will have a field day with this one. Plaxico just handed them yet another bat. You really want to give them the chance to beat on us all with it?

I'm a responsible and law abiding gun owner and value my fragile 2A rights too much to hook my cart to this horse. Sorry. Let him hang.

What, pray tell, did he do wrong? He didn't beg for a license that he couldn't get?

The article stated the gun started to fall down his pants. he went to grab the gun and pulled the trigger. The gun went off, and then fell on the floor.

That's not Burress's legal problem.

 

[Garys]

Fair enough. But Plaxico Burress shouldn't be obligated to have bodyguards. Sure, it's an option for him, or me, or you, but I'd rather take a more affordable route and pack my own gun.

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.

You know that Burress is only being brought up on charges of carrying an unregistered weapon, right? The negligent discharge, AFAIK, wasn't even material. Yup, you need to carry a pretty piece of paper, a permission slip, from the government. That's it. Burress didn't have the government permission slip so the government got into a tizzy.

Unless there is a law against accidentally discharging a firearm, there is nothing else to charge him with. He didn't brandish the weapon, he didn't shoot at anyone or even shoot in the air. Whether you agree with the law that requires a permit or not, it's the law. If he was engaging in an act of civil disobedience, he would have openly carried in defiance of the law and suffered the consequences. He wasn't doing that, he was concealing the gun because he knew it was illegal in New York for him to have it.


[/QUOTE]
Burress should have to pay for any property damage done to the bar's floor and nothing more because none of us should be required to have government permission to carry a gun; Insofar you're not a felon, mental defective or ex-felon (IMHO) or child, then you should be able to carry. Just like in Vermont.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Gabe]

Disagree totally. Bernie Goetz, for sure. Plaxico...NFW. He's a pi$$ poor example of a responsible gun owner and the media will have a field day with this one. Plaxico just handed them yet another bat. You really want to give them the chance to beat on us all with it?

I'm a responsible and law abiding gun owner and value my fragile 2A rights too much to hook my cart to this horse. Sorry. Let him hang.

I vote for aggressive optimism: There is "a bat" out there, but Burress didn't give it to anyone; it's up for grabs; it's either theirs or ours. Let's grab it and beat them with it; cut Burress off his gallows instead.

He was stupid and he is a "pi$$ poor example" but this isn't something to hold against him - it's an opportunity to reteach everyone what freedom really means. Freedom shouldn't just be available to well behaved button down types, it should be available to everyone, even to scum; it should be "equal opportunity." Being scum is not tantamount to surrendering your rights as a human being.