Plaxico Burress Shoots him self...

[marshaul]

imported post

If Burress made it to the Supreme Court, it would be the law they judge, and not Burress himself. I fail to see how he would be a poor case when the law is unconstitutional on the face of it.

 

[SaltH2OHokie]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

If Burress made it to the Supreme Court, it would be the law they judge, and not Burress himself. I fail to see how he would be a poor case when the law is unconstitutional on the face of it.

So are you saying that any "may issue" state is in violation of the constitution?

(I'm not trying to argue that it isn't...or is...I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I said this before. Yes, "may-issue" is violative, prima facie, of the 14th Amendment's guarantee to "equal protection under the law". But, even moreso, Heller's 2nd Amendment protects (or will, after Nordyke) the right to the means of self-defense. New York doesn't allow OC, and it doesn't allow CC (may-issue doesn't count; if we have a right to self-defense, may-issue means that that right is unequally protected). Something HAS to give. Until residents are capable of legally exercising the right to self-defense in some fashion, it is unconstitutional to prosecute them for exercising it the only way they practically may.

 

[Prophet]

imported post

I agree with Marshaul. Unless there is a actual reason of insanity or criminal past May issue states are so unconstitutional it would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic.

May Issue states can in fact become de facto gun ban states if the issuing officers decide not to give out permits because they don't feel like it, regardless of those who apply. As it stands now it costs a citizen of NY roughly $200 to spin the wheel and hope that the officer issuing the permit isnt some douchebag who hates the idea of anyone without a badge from defending themselves.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Try getting a carry permit in NJ. It's a complete joke. Even buying a handgun in NJ is almost may-issue.

 

[SaltH2OHokie]

imported post

I don't disagree with the premise, I disagree with the "civil disobedience" so to speak. If a law is unconstitutional it can be challenged in court w/out breaking it first.

If the speed limit in your neighborhood is too slow, do you take your case to city council and ask them to consider raising it or do you just speed through there all the time and then after getting caught, go to court and say "well the limit was clearly set too low!" ? <---Poorly set up hypothetical, but the point remains the same...if he were fighting for 2nd amendment rights with all his NFL money, I can think of a few better ways to start than carrying w/out a holster in a night club in a state where I doubt he ever applied for a permit in the first place (going out on a limb on that one since I really don't know) and then shooting himself in the leg.

That's all I'm saying. I don't disagree with you that the law may be unconstitutional. We're on the same side of the ball with this...in principle. If he takes it to the top and wins a victory for gun owners all around, all the better by me (though it would take away one of my many excuses for not ever visiting NY or NJ.)

 

[marshaul]

imported post

SaltH2OHokie wrote:

I don't disagree with the premise, I disagree with the "civil disobedience" so to speak.  If a law is unconstitutional it can be challenged in court w/out breaking it first. 

It can be very difficult to show standing to challenge these types of laws. Being charged is a foolproof way to accomplish just that.

 

[Smurfologist]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

SaltH2OHokie wrote:

I don't disagree with the premise, I disagree with the "civil disobedience" so to speak. If a law is unconstitutional it can be challenged in court w/out breaking it first.

It can be very difficult to show standing to challenge these types of laws. Being charged is a foolproof way to accomplish just that.

I have a question: "Was NYC and NJ challenged by the NRA after the Heller case (like Chicago andSan Francisco)?"

2nd Amendment........Use it........Or, lose it!!:X

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

I don't think they have been challenged quite yet. The Chicago and SF laws completely ban handguns. The purpose of the challenge there is to get the 2nd amendment incorporated.

Once that is accomplished, it should be possible to challenge fees and licensing (14th forbids taxing of constitutionally protected rights) the NY and NJ laws without even having to take it to the SCOTUS. In fact, it should be possible to challenge MOST gun control laws throughout the US.

Getting the 2nd amendment incorporated into the 14th is extremely important for many states out there. Many states already have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their state constitutions. For those that don't, incorporation means being able to throw off a most gun control laws- but particularly those that ban certain classes of guns, such as handguns or "assault weapons".

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I don't think they have been challenged quite yet. The Chicago and SF laws completely ban handguns.

Wrong. The SF handgun ban was never valid, never enforced, and overturned almost immediately after it was passed. Why does everybody think that CA is anything close to as bad as Chicago or New York? California has preemption; the SF ban on handguns never prevented a single person from owning one.

The current suit of San Francisco is over the prohibition by lease of guns in public housing, i.e. city-owned apartments for poor people.

Edit: FYI, I live in San Francisco, and I just bought a handgun. :celebrate

 

[Prophet]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I don't think they have been challenged quite yet. The Chicago and SF laws completely ban handguns.

Wrong. The SF handgun ban was never valid, never enforced, and overturned almost immediately after it was passed. Why does everybody think that CA is anything close to as bad as Chicago or New York? California has preemption; the SF ban on handguns never prevented a single person from owning one.

The current suit of San Francisco is over the prohibition by lease of guns in public housing, i.e. city-owned apartments for poor people.

Edit: FYI, I live in San Francisco, and I just bought a handgun. :celebrate

Great point Marshaul. New York (especially the City) is horrible for gun rights. I know a forensic scientist for the State Troopers that had to wait over 6 months for a CCW. And the ban in NYC is backed up by a mandatory 3.5 year minimum sentence. Bloomberg is goosesteppin all over the 2A...the californians are just in a drum circle trying to send gun control vibes out to little effect.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

Hmm okay so where is the NRA Legal Defense fund? And the Civil liberties Union? dang this would/could be a monster case for 2a rights. If I was PB I'd be getting the best lawyer money (and don't tell me he has no money) could buy and I'd be all over this. But,,he was dumb shooting yourself is just a faux pas :shock: