TexasCHLforum.com

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/f ... ml?cnn=yes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just can't decide which part I like the best:

- You cannot carry a handgun in NYC
- Let alone conceal carry
- Let alone in a Nightclub which is most likely 51%
- All the while he has an EXPIRED CHL from ANOTHER STATE (FL)

*rolleyes*

He got what he deserved - laws are put in place to protect people - he could have "accidentally" killed someone else.

But it sure gives us a bad rap.....

just the news spin we needed...

Thats good news for the Cowboys. Too bad he didnt bleed out! Ooops I didnt really type that did I?

Burress is expected to be arrested on felony weapons charges in the coming days

Who expects these charges to quietly disappear a few days after that?

"Plaxico Burress plans to turn himself in to police Monday morning in New York City and plead not guilty to criminal possession of a weapon, his lawyer said."

I'm guessing he's not guilty of having of having a functioning brain.

LCP_Dogg wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/f ... ml?cnn=yes

I just can't decide which part I like the best:

- You cannot carry a handgun in NYC
- Let alone conceal carry
- Let alone in a Nightclub which is most likely 51%
- All the while he has an EXPIRED CHL from ANOTHER STATE (FL)

*rolleyes*

He got what he deserved - laws are put in place to protect people - he could have "accidentally" killed someone else.

But it sure gives us a bad rap.....

Actually there are concealed carry pistol permits available in NY City, and:

Section 400.00 Paragraph 6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance.

And:

Section 265.20 Exemptions

a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:

1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05 and 270.05 by the following:

. . .

3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter ; provided, that such a license shall not preclude a conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section 265.01 of this article.

No mention of being in places that serve alcohol. (Subdivision 3 of 265.01 pertains to educational institutions)

I can remember, before NY's law required concealment, seeing open carry in bars.

Now as far as it giving "us" a bad rap, it's just one more example of elitism by sports stars, there are too few Tony Romos out there, and SHOULD not reflect negatively on gun owners in general. Of course it will reflect badly because the brady bunch and their merry minions will pounce on it.

Whether his FL license is good or not, the fact that he has or had one should mean that he has some acquaintance with the laws and rules pertaining to carry and the fact that it wouldn't be good in NY City.

I think he should be charged in numerous ways, including Federally for illegally transporting a firearm in interstate commerce, and the NFL should fire him for damaging NFL property. He should be made an example of, and extreme example, a very extreme example.

Does anyone else wonder what Bloomberg and Paterson are doing about it.

Burrell could be just they guy to contest the constitutional legitimacy of New York's concealed carry law in the wake of Heller v. U.S. Rich, high profile, an out of state resident caught packing a gun for SD without a permit while traveling in an adjacent state who undoubtably doesn't want to go upstate to Sing Sing for the mandatory one-year jail term (if still NY law) for said offense. For the same reasons, I don't think the charge will be dropped. Being as Levy and Gurra are already revved up on the issues, what's another case when it's the perfect case?

casingpoint wrote:Burrell could be just they guy to contest the constitutional legitimacy of New York's concealed carry law in the wake of Heller v. U.S. Rich, high profile, an out of state resident caught packing a gun for SD without a permit while traveling in an adjacent state who undoubtably doesn't want to go upstate to Sing Sing for the mandatory one-year jail term (if still NY law) for said offense. For the same reasons, I don't think the charge will be dropped. Being as Levy and Gurra are already revved up on the issues, what's another case when it's the perfect case?

Someone who broke numerous laws and winds up shooting himself could hardly be considered a perfect case.

Breaking an unconstitutional law hardly justifies a guilt trip.

Yeah, he's not the test case I'd like to see.

casingpoint wrote:Breaking an unconstitutional law hardly justifies a guilt trip.

Which one? Burress broke MANY laws, some of which may very well be constitutional, I just hope he's charged with ALL of the violations, local, state, federal and NFL.

Not a good test case at all, another Bernhard Goetz would be far better. Burress does not appear to have been trying to defend himself from commuter predators, it appears he was either showing off or just being careless, and reckless behavior does not lend well to a plea of unconstitutionality of any laws he may have been violating. OTOH, reckless behavior like that DOES justify a major guilt trip, up to and including elimination from the gene pool.

LOL, The one that says don't Mexican carry a Glock.

Far as I can tell, Burress is just being charged with possession of an unpermitted concealed handgun under NY State law and faces up to three years in jail. Seven if they can prove he was out to get somebody with it. He got somebody, alright. KABOOM!!! Man, that must have been a shocker, right in his own pants.

casingpoint wrote:Far as I can tell, Burress is just being charged with possession of an unpermitted concealed handgun under NY State law and faces up to three years in jail.

So what is unconstitutional about that law? Don't forget that NY's (both city and state) laws have been challenged as unconstitutional in the past, and although they have not gone as far as SCOTUS, they have always been held to be constitutional.

While I would agree that NY's pistol permit law is pretty much unconstitutional, and I even served on a NYSR&PA committee with the object of overturning or at least "softening" the law, declaring it to be so is a lot different than actually winning the case, and I see no reason to think he would win on a test of constitutionality.

I could fill a rather large thread with tales of our Sisyphean battles with various entities in the state of NY. I sure am glad to be in Texas.

You can't carry without a permit in New York, so the law as written amounts to a total ban on carrying if you don't have a permit.

Total ban = unconstitutional.

Even if New York allowed open carry, the concealed carry law does not serve a narrow public interest that would justify it under strict or heightened scrutiny, if either of those are applied.

I'd better leave the rest to the expert:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/14/ ... hats-next/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

casingpoint wrote:You can't carry without a permit in New York, so the law as written amounts to a total ban on carrying if you don't have a permit.

Total ban = unconstitutional.

Even if New York allowed open carry, the concealed carry law does not serve a narrow public interest that would justify it under strict or heightened scrutiny, if either of those are applied.

I'd better leave the rest to the expert:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/14/ ... hats-next/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not the same as DC's defacto total ban, people are issued permits in NY under the law as written. Putting it in terms of a total ban if you don't have a permit makes it exactly the same as Texas law, and most of the other states that have licensed concealed carry. DC was not issuing permits, NY does, DC had a total ban, NY does not, not total, therefore by your logic, then does not equal unconstitutional.

Yes, there is a slim chance that a proper case could make it to SCOTUS and even less of a chance that they would agree that NY's pistol permit laws are unconstitutional, but Burress is the least likely to be able to make it to SCOTUS, much less win.

I have read Robert Levy's essay quite thoroughly and don't find anything that makes me believe he or the Cato Institute are ready to take NY to SCOTUS. Actually he leaves quite a lot open to speculation and what must happen in order to accomplish true Second Amendment freedom. Look carefully at his last sentence in the section titled "What Gun Regulations Will Now Be Permissible?" and note that the court has not yet adopted any stance.

And then consider the last paragraph of the next section, wherein he specifically allows that the states will still be able to pass and enforce whatever laws until SCOTUS incorporates the Second.

All in all, I don't see NY's law being declared unconstitutional in the near future.