Mr.

His attorney, if he or she is any good, should also push for jury nullification on the basis of the second amendment (and possibly New York's constitution, if it has a right to bear arms clause). Also, Mr. Burress et al should invest in a decent holster.

Guest

user

yes I agree that he is in trouble. I know that the man is not a criminal. however he has done something incredibly stupid! he carried without a permit a gun that was not properly secured, it was loaded and cocked so that when it got dropped it discharged. now he will pay and be lucky to not be banned from ever legally carrying a gun or even owning one. It is a shame that this has happened. but learn from it everyone! this is going to cost him no matter what happens. If he does manage to slip thru the cracks and not be branded a criminal, which i hope for, he must get some training and learn how to be a sheep dog. Google 'On Sheep Wolves and Sheep Dogs by Dave Grossman and give it to him with my respects. thank you (an old and loveing Sheep Dog)

http://outdoors unlimited

Guest

sir

It's quite right that the criminals in this case are the people doing the prosecuting. They need to be put in jail. The jury could nullify the law, but they'll be lied to about nullification.

Guest

user

Guess you are right sir. In my sinility I forgot that most government officials now days are in fact Criminals. personal integrity seems to be a thing of the past. Honesty and integrity are banned in our childrens schools because the Christian values are not the values of the people teaching them. We have schools just like the muslems do we not? A weary old Sheep dog that still moves towards the gunfire.

http://outdoors unlimited

Guest

Two sides to this

There are two sides to the reprecussions of his actions. First, he is NOT guilty of providing defense for himself. Second, he IS in fact guilty of being stupid. His stupidity was dressing like a dips*it and not being able to properly retain his weapon. His punishment for personal injury should be the injury itself and enough to warrant he'll never be that stupid again (hopefully). Dude, you're not P Diddy, stop trying to dress like him. C'mon, sweatpants and a handgun? Gimme a break. But, he is NOT guilty of providing defense for himself, nor is anyone else. Unless of course, you have violated any immoral law and have lost your rights as a citizen, i.e. murderer, rapist, arsonist, or convicted of money embezzlement. As far as Bloomberg goes, everyone in New York City that knows their rights should tell him to shove it. This man, Plaxico Burress, should indeed take his case to the Supreme Court.

Guest

Two sides to this

Yes; the laws in NYC suck. But they have for a very long time and everyone knows it. This is not a missunderstanding. It is blatent stupidity -- pure and simple. He can afford body guards. He can afford and choose to go safe / up scale places. He can afford a decent holster. He can afford an advisor to baby sit him and advise him if he's moving in a foolish direction. He can obey the law until it is corrected and changed the same as millions of others do. He can aford to contribute to the efforts to change the law. He can renew his expired FL permit or have a paid staff member see to it for him. The bottom line is very simple. Being stupid is a bad thing and acting stupid often has negative consequences. I'm pretty sure that's why "stupid" has a negative conotation in the first place. 
 
If you drive way over the speed limit you're not a victum of low speed limit itis. You're not velocity enhanced. You're braking an existing law you are required to know and obey. Doing that endangers yourself and others. 
 
If you drop a loaded gun down your pants you're not a second amendment test case you're a dumb dangerous irresponsible fool who becomes the poster boy for the gun control crowd to cite as why laws are needed. 
 
Let's call stupid for what it is and not elevate a fool as our example of who we are and what we stand for.

Guest

There's another way Burress can skin th

In NY state generally and NYC as well, permits to carry guns are theoretically available, more often to the rich and famous...but only to local residents. 
 
Per existing US Supreme Court case law, that's illegal - especially when a federally protected civil right is involved. 
 
The first such case dates to 1870 in the very first case the USSC ever heard regarding the new 14th Amendment of 1868. In Ward v. Maryland, Mr. Ward was a merchant from New Jersey who wanted to sell horse and buggy-related gear in MD - which had a special extra tax set up on out-of-state merchants. Ward didn't pay the tax. The USSC found that the right to engage in commerce was a federally protected civil right that Maryland couldn't infringe on in a discriminatory fashion against US citizens from out-of-state. 
 
Two years later in the Slaughter-house cases, basically the same justices said that while the 14th Amendment was a barrier to cross-border discrimination in trade, it did NOT act as a barrier to in-state discrimination, even when corruption was likely involved. In Slaughter-house, the city of New Orleans created a monopoly on butcher shop operations and while the court noted that it was likely for the enrichment of a few people, the court was going to let states do whatever they wanted inside their own borders. 
 
A few years after that in US v. Cruikshank, the court extended this "states can do whatever they want to their own folk" into horrific violations of civil rights including the right to vote, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to disarm people. Cruikshank was the follow-up to a nasty scene in which blacks trying to vote under the new 15th Amendment were first stripped of arms by state agents and then killed wholesale across three days of arson, riot, rape and murder. Over 100 died - look up the "Colfax massacre". 
 
In the 20th century the Supremes realized they're screwed up and invented this idea of "selective incorporation" where one piece at a time, civil rights were "selectively incorporated" against the states. So far only a few haven't been - the right to a grand jury indictment for example, and (so far) the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. 
 
So: where we're at now is, New York claims a right to violate the 2nd Amendment because it's not incorporated. And there's people fighting to get it incorporated, led by Alan Gura, the guy that won the Heller decision last year regarding a basic personal civil right to arms. 
 
There are two possible gameplans Gura and his supporters could get: either get the right to arms "selectively incorporated", or scrap Slaughter-house completely and declare it a screwup, and that the ENTIRE Bill Of Rights (including of course arms) should have been applied to the states in 1868 with the 14th Amendment. 
 
But here's the kicker for Burress: right now, Slaughter-house is still good case law. And it's built-in, mentioned-by-name support for Ward v. Maryland is also in full effect. In fact, it was reinforced as recently as 1999 in the USSC case of Saenz v. Roe (regarding a right to interstate travel). 
 
That means the discrimination Burress faced as a Florida resident visiting NY became illegal the moment the right to arms became a Federally recognized civil right in the Heller case last year. Under that model, NY's laws would be valid so long as they're equally applied to in-state and out-of-state citizens. Since it's NOT, Burress (and any other visitor) is constitutionally free to ignore the discriminatory law the same as Mr. Ward was. 
 
This gets Burress free and clear without engaging in the fight to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states. It would embarrass the hell out of NY and Mayor Bloomberg, but wouldn't have a very major effect except in rare cases like that of Burress.

Guest

Mr

Years ago when I lived in Pittsburgh in the blue state of PA the then-President of USX visited the Pentagon and was found to have a loaded .45 auto in his briefcase. He was given a small fine, as I recall. Burress should find out who his lawyer was.

Guest