| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/06/2008 11:12:44 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144047/posts |
Posted on 12/06/2008 10:33:58 AM PST by Winged Hussar
Civilization is based on a social contract in which people surrender some of their autonomy to a government; in other words, they agree to obey the government's laws. The government, in turn, agrees to protect the people's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. If said government then willfully refuses to protect the people's rights (as German police did when they stood by and let Nazis demolish Jewish neighborhoods in 1938), it forfeits the right to command its citizens' obedience.
In 1991, a rampaging mob re-enacted the Night of the Broken Glass in Crown Heights, a Jewish neighborhood in New York. The Jews called 911 repeatedly, but the police did not respond to the violence in which a Jew named Yankel Rosenbaum was eventually murdered. Then-Governor Mario Cuomo did not call out the National Guard to suppress the violence.
The city's, and possibly the state's, WILLFUL failure to protect the Jews' natural rights to remain alive and not have their property smashed was a breach of the social contract. New York therefore forfeited any moral right to tell people whether they can own firearms for self-protection. The same goes for California, because police told citizens that they were "on their own" during the Los Angeles riots (in which a man was dragged from his truck and beaten to a bloody pulp).
Courts have meanwhile ruled (in many jurisdictions) that police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens, and that citizens have no legal recourse if the police do not respond to emergency calls. This also is a breach of the social contract.
Now, I am certainly not going to advise anyone to break a law for which they can be arrested and prosecuted. I can only say what I would do were I on the jury (which I won't be, since I don't live in NY or CA). The Fully Informed Jury Association has more information on your rights and responsibilities as a juror (http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf). ""...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"."
"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."
None of the above condones Mr. Burress' alleged carrying of a handgun with (apparently) a live round in the chamber and the safety off, in combination with alleged consumption of alcohol while in possession of said firearm. As a juror, I would be receptive to a charge of endangering other people (since the stray bullet could have hit someone other than Burress) but not to a charge of violating New York City's gun laws.
If he has not at least tried to apply for a permit, though, his case would be very weak.
Even unconstitutional laws are good if they put an actor or an impudent pro athlete behind bars.
The stupidest part is that he was in a safe place. They had a metal detector at the door! He was the only danger to him in there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2142693/posts didn’t show up for a search on “Free Plaxico Burress.” I checked before I posted this entry.
The gun laws of NY are unconstitutional and immoral.
***Even unconstitutional laws are good if they put an actor or an impudent pro athlete behind bars.***
Do you think that’s a bit short-sighted? Personally I want the constitution upheld all the time.
“Even unconstitutional laws are good if they put an actor or an impudent pro athlete behind bars.”
The thing is, those people seem to live under a different set of laws than the rest of us. As an example, prominent and affluent columnist Carl Rowan, who said that anyone who owned a gun illegally should go to jail, was not prosecuted for hitting a trespasser with a “warning shot” from an unregistered handgun in Washington DC.
Yet another reason for jurors to refuse to enforce these laws against ordinary citizens. It is clear that affluent celebrities and similar people like Rowan are above the law with regard to gun control, so no one else should have to obey these laws either.
but Buriss was just doing his crooked hat gangsta impression. with his own native intelligence(or lack thereof), this turd shot hisself in the thigh. A classic example of a Darwin awardee who missed the top prize.
and I reiterate, NYC gun laws are unconstitutional. As a NY State licensee, I have to unload my gun and lock it in a box during the 15 minute drive through fun city, from upstate to Long Island.
Bloomberg is a horses @$$.
Actually, I’m somewhat surprised that Burress wasn’t able to obtain a permit based upon his status as a football star in the Big Apple.
he lives and works in the state of New Jersey.
You should put in a sarcasm clause, because if the nightclub had a metal detector, how did he get through?
Just playing devils advocate here. I am not trying to justify him carrying in the club.
How did he get around the metal detector? I doubt it was an airport style detector but a hand held wand. If he was inside with a gun and there was a detector that means it either wasn't in use, defective or used selectively ie; major league celebrities were exempt from scrutiny.
He told the guard he had a gun. The guard got the manager. Plaxifool told him he was carrying lots of cash, and the manager let him bring the gun in because he was Plaxico!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You mean we can’t put him in jail for being an idiot?
I was being silly with my comment. However, most of the time celebrities do seem to escape punishment. (They even win most of the time in civil suits).
I have no particular personal nor fan interest in Burress nor his team, yet I have a sense that he is being shafted by government, undoubtedly because his individual interests in carrying a gun conflicts so sharply with the Left's gun control agenda. Plus, the fact that he is affluent and prominent make Burress a very convenient "whipping boy" and "poster child" for the Left's crusade.
Whether or not the NY gun licensing regime is constitutional or not, the fact is that the mandatory sentence for simple unlicensed carry of a weapon - 3 1/2 years - is grossly out of whack when one considers the grade of severity of the offense, especially when the act being punished is perfectly legal in a large part of the country.
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.