Posted on 04/16/2006 5:33:39 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.
One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.
Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I didn't think so.
Is it difficult to register a firearm in NYC?
Why was it unregistered?
And what happened to the crooks?
Just damn.
Darn near impossible, especially for a handgun, unless you are "somebody", in which case all things are possible.
It is EXTREMELY difficult to obtain the legal necessities for a firearm in NYC. And, even if you may qualify, the system takes a long long time.
Better to shoot back with an unregistered weapon than to not have one and be killed by the outlaws with guns.
When guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns.
This one needs to be decided by a jury made up of people who have been under the gun.
What happened to the stick-up men?
Why, they are victims of firearms violence, of course! I'm sure that NYC is providing them with counseling, to recover from the trauma of being shot at by an unregistered firearm. (/sarc)
Both brothers were charged, It would be fun to know how they both fired one gun. Is that one gun unregistered in both names?? LOL.
Gee.....there go the authorities favoring the crooks again.
Gee...next you'll be hearing about amnesty for illegal invaders.
It sure doesn't pay to be a law-abiding American anymore!
The Congress prefers to represent the law-breakers and foreign scum, terroists included.
It's high time to take back our country from the Tory Congress.
Let's create a nation within the nation and fight for what's right!!
And one more thing: the NY cops have traditionally looked the other way re unregistered long guns.
When they go to court they should be avowedly unrepentant.
It's looking like that more and more. What will happen when normally law abiding people begin to take this lesson to heart?
That is appalling.
I am very comfortable here in Florida, where, if you charge into a store with a gun, you may very well be shot by several people.
More smash and grab here than anything else.
And don't even think of carjacking without writing out your will first.
Come to Georgia, our legislature just passed the "Castle Bill" giving anyone who is somewhere legally the right to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary.
We need good businessmen here anyway.....come on down!
That'll learn the sonofabitches to survive crimminal assult!! Fork ya, Mayor!
Why was it unregistered?
Difficult doesn't even beging to describe it, unless your name happens to be Trump or DeNiro, both of whom, I believe happen to have carry permits in NYC.
When I moved to NY (not NYC, but out on Long Island - NYC laws are stricter) for school, I inquired about bringing my .45 1911 with me. I was told that it would cost more than I paid for the pistol, and take about a year before I could bring it in to the state of NY legally, but that is only if I became a state resident. If I didn't change my state of residency, I would not be able to bring it with me (not legally).
And what happened to the crooks?
I have no doubt that they're going to get rich.
Mark
I live in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts"
Boston just announced plans for a "Weapons Buy Back" nothing like the taxpayers funding weapons upgrades for criminals.
Having been born and raised in a red state (VA). I cannot believe the insanity that is on parade here. These people will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid displaying anything resembling common sense.
My favorite is the Run and Hide from the criminal breaking into your home law. Which states you can only use deadly force for self defense if you are cornered and there is no escape.
Contrast that with the sheriff of my old hometown. "It is self defense if the perps body is across the threshold of the point of entry. If he falls backward outside drag em back in."
Join the NRA.
This is the same tactic that the DA used on Bernie Goetz when he shot the people that molested him.
Out here in Cooke Co TX the sheriff would take about a minute to conclude it was justifiable and compliment
them on reducing the criminal population.
When their are laws you obey them.. period.
Or should we all just go the way of illegal immigrants?
Federal suit against the city for violating civil rights, via denying right to self defense under 2A; and try to find a shadow of a pennumbra under 14A?
Not "difficult"; dang near impossible, is more like it.
And what happened to the crooks?
Since the robbers had a legally stolen weapon; and were shot at with an illegally possessed weapon; and had their plans fouly ruined by criminally armed victems, they have suffered enough, and will be released and awarded damages for mental anguish.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!
Hey, Florida needs every conservative voter out there.
We are working hard on pushing Florida out of the swing catagory and firmly into the red column.
And in the next census, we will push NY out of 3rd place in the delegate count!
We want every one of those many delegates to go GOP.
Lifetime member since 1975.
Wrong. An unconstitutional law is not a valid law, and you are under no obligation to obey it. See American Jurisprudence (16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 177):
An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jury trial = 'not guilty'.
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
The right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can't put restrictions on those rights.
I don't want a 4 year old running around with a gun.
You can have rights.. but have common sense applied to them.
You think it's unconstitutional that's your business. But then you are willing of course to pay the penalty for those that don't see things your way.
You carry around all the illegal firearms you want.. but please don't ever provide your name or I'll be the first person to call in the ATF on you.
I heart NYC. No, wait, make that I hate NYC.
The simple answer is for all the conservative people who wish to be legally allowed to defend themselves to move to where it is already legal.
Wrong, says dpweiner:
An unconstitutional law is not a valid law, and you are under no obligation to obey it.
See American Jurisprudence (16AmJur 2nd, Sec. 177):
"-- An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.--"
29 dpwiener
Moving out of States like NY, Mass, & CA, -- in effect abandoning them to gun prohibitionists, -- cannot be the answer.
The answer is civil disobedience on a massive scale: "-- No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it --"
Fight enough of these cases before juries, appeal in the court system on up to the USSC, -- and eventually the rogue States will be forced to comply with the Constitution.
Perhaps you've failed to note that those states already do not follow the law as it should be. I left California in 1973 because the writing was on the wall even then. There were more people there, even back then, that thought guns wrong and evil that it was too late; today, it is even more so. I hope they remember that when the Aztlan-adherents go overt.
Yep, reasonable regulations concerning guns can be written by fed state, & local governments, as long as they do not infringe on our rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Prohibitions on guns violate due process in both writing & enforcing.
You can have rights.. but have common sense applied to them.
You think it's unconstitutional that's your business.
It's everybody's business.. We are all obligated to protect & defend our supreme laws.. The 2nd is the "Law of the Land".
But then you are willing of course to pay the penalty for those that don't see things your way.
You carry around all the illegal firearms you want..
There are no "illegal firearms" under the Constitution. -- Some types are just unreasonably regulated. Such prohibitions are unconstitutional.
but please don't ever provide your name or I'll be the first person to call in the ATF on you.
Nice to know who your friends are, -- thanks.
Why not just repeal all gun laws, thereby ENSURING decorum and good manners?
The Crooks (the Robbers) will get off on technicalities.
I forgot to say that the "Criminals" (the robbery suspects) will be able to sue the business owners in court for everything they are worth (That is, if NYC does not sieze the property for themselves)
I have seen this so, so many times, and each time, I ask: "Do you think that any half-decent CSI couldn't figure out what transpired? Really, now.
"I heart NYC. No, wait, make that I hate NYC."
How's 'bout calling it the "Big Sh*tty". Lots of my colleagues do. And some have lived there, as have I. Though, in all fairness, many large cities qualify for that title/name.
Friends don't help friends brake the law. Perhaps you unfamilar with the bible teachings of obeying the laws of the government.
In any case you seem to have a different definition of due process.
Due process is through the court system.. not through laws of the land. While we can't write a law to enable to search any house at any time without due cause.. we certainly can pass laws regarding society.
As usual I find myself talking to another Republican who picks and choose sections of the constitution at which to interrupt his way.
It's no wonder judges find that abortion is a right to privacy.
The right to bear arms is not the right to bear any arms. Technology has provided us automatic weapons... tanks.. and nukes.. I guess the way you read the Constitution we shall be able to keep a low yield nuke in our closests just in case the Government gets a little out of hand.
Instead of reading things the way you want you might want to go back and take a look. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS means that we can have weapons.. it doesn't say that right can't be regulated.. it doesn't say that we have the right to bear any type of arm.. and certainly doesn't you get to throw in due process because you feel like adding that into an amendment that doesn't even talk about due process.
Stick up men or the NY City government. What is the difference?
Chances are this won't get as far as a jury trial. And if it did, the judge would forbid the defense to make any mention of the circumstances surrounding how they came to be charged with possession of an unregistered handgun.
Well, cannon were certainly available during the time the Bill of Rights was written. I must've missed the part in the Second Amendment where it limits an individual's right to only having small arms. Perhaps you can point it out....
Alrighty then.. I would love for you to carry a sign saying I support an individuals right to have nuclear weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.