Why is the Plaxico Burress news a big deal?

Because he's a celebrity. Period.

 

Are you serious?

He had an ILLEGAL, UNREGISTERED, LOADED gun WITHOUT a PERMIT in a NIGHTCLUB.

It is a big deal.

 

You forgot IN HIS SWEATPANTS. Plus, he's been disciplined a ridiculous number of times. Domestic abuse incidents. Basically, he's established himself as an all-round class guy! In NY, there's a mandatory sentence for carrying without a permit, 3 years I think? That will be a big deal, and it's unlikely anyone in NYC wants to go easy on him for fear of backlash.

 

Just more wannabe thuggery from a pro athlete.....

Pfffft!

 

The only reason it's news is he's an NFL star. If it were you or I we would be sitting in our orange jumpsuit and eating our PB&J at the county jail!! The good news is the DA for that area is making statements that he will be prosecuted like anyone else...........ummmm ok.

He should have paid Bobby from the Sopranos to shoot him for the street cred!!!!!

 

That's hardly the bigger point, as Gilles and Tex have already pointed out.

 

You two must be young.

 

My comment looks ridiculous as it reads. I was taking kosmo's comment of "no big deal" to question why is it newsworthy. Trust me, I hope he's prosecuted fully!

 

He's toast, but I agree the talk about it 24/7 on espn is a little overkill...

However, if it sets an example to the other wannabe thug idiots out there... it's worth it.

 

With the international media's eye on this case, they won't be cutting any corners on this one! I heard someone on the radio trying to explain that inner-city athletes doing well are "protected" by the gangs because they are beneficial to the community. Once they go pro, they no longer have that gang protection and have to "protect themselves". I almost threw up in my car!

 

It's obvious that things like this get overkilled in the press because of celebrity status. As tragic as it was, the Jennifer Hudson family killings would never have registered more than a 30-second mention on the local news had there been no Hollywood connection. It's just the way it is.

 

It diverts peoples attention from real problems like why they don't have any money right now.

 

Ummm...lots of these people never had any money anyway. They only THOUGHT they did.

RMX

 

I think the more interesting thing about Plaxico Burress' situation is he might appeal a felony conviction for gun possession and challenge the NYC law as unconstitutional. Clearly the NYC law is in conflict with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I know it is hard for some people to believe, but the 2nd Amendment says a citizen has the right to carry an unconcealed loaded handgun in any part of the country (actually 99% of the country - places like military bases and the white house are excluded).

I'm thinking, because he is a celebrity, the justice system has to show no favoritism and will probably end up convicting him of gun possession (and maybe a few other charges like concealing a gun and discharging a gun, but it is the gun possession charge that is pivotal). They then will be forced to sentence him to 3 years in prison minimum. Because of the implications on his NFL career and the loss of 3 years of multi-million dollar income, it will be well-worth it for him to fund an appeal. And keep appealing it, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Then, once again, it is highly likely the Supreme Court will rule like they did with Washington DC's gun law. That is, they will strike down the NYC law as unconstitutional and Plaxico Burress will be declared innocent of the gun possession charge.

Could get real interesting. The ramifications of this case could be the reversal of all of NYC's prior gun posession convictions.

 

Career³*Money³-BRAINS+gun-bullet+leg=Careerº/Moneyº*Jail²

 

Nice!

 

...and in a state where you don't have 2nd Amendment rights.

 

I am by no means anti-gun, I own a handgun and have no problem with evil black rifles. But you are assuming a lot when it comes to the 2nd amendment. If I ever start a "well regulated militia", than Plaxico Burress is not invited. Plaxico cannot even participate in a functional manner on a "well regulated" football team, let alone a militia of some sort. It is definitely a long stretch of the amendments wording to state, (or believe that it should be) completely legal to just wander around the streets with a loaded, exposed handgun, a fact that I think most people would agree with here.

I think you are being very imaginative with the second half of your post as well. You must be joking if you actually believe the supreme court is going to overturn standing gun LAWS as unconstitutional as the result of the actions of one extremely irresponsible football player with a shady record to begin with, who carried an unlicensed, concealed handgun into a nightclub where he was supposedly drinking heavily and somehow ended up shooting himself. He could have just as easily hurt or killed himself or someone else through his actions. These type of things make all gun owners look bad. To think that his forthcoming case is going to make all existing gun laws in New York City or elsewhere become overturned, or the simple possibility thereof, is basically dilussional.

 

I respectfully disagree. Here is some info to further explain why.

You state: "It is definitely a long stretch of the amendments wording to state, (or believe that it should be) completely legal to just wander around the streets with a loaded, exposed handgun ...",

yet: "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

So, yes, it is true that 44 states out of 50 believe in the right to what is called "open carry". That is, to walk around in public with a loaded handgun strapped to your belt. Sorry, perhaps you live in one of the 6 states that isn't in synch with the 2nd Amendment (but soon will forced to be, given what has happened in Washington DC in 2008).

You then state: "You must be joking if you actually believe the supreme court is going to overturn standing gun LAWS as unconstitutional ... "
Sorry, but this is EXACTLY what has happened to Washington DC due to the Supreme Court case in 2008. In fact the quote from the below link is "Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun. The decision will affect gun control laws across the country. " Notice the part about the right to "carry a gun". That means a loaded gun. Like a handgun. Like while it is strapped to your belt. Like into a restaurant.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5037600

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the whole notion of gun control has been turned on its head recently. Liberals always hung their hopes that the 2nd Amendment applied only to "State run militias" and not to individual citizens. Conservatives always claimed "no, that is the right of every citizen, not just militias". Yet, that particular issue had never before been formally decided by the Supreme Court exactly what those words actually meant. Well, now it has been decided. Decided forever. Clear precedent has been set. And, turns out, those words mean "for every citizen in the country" (yes, even in NYC).

And, even if more liberal-minded judges are appointed to the Supreme Court later, it will be near impossible to reverse this decision. The basis for reversal is almost non-existent. So, gun laws will now have to be significantly reduced to be in compliance with this new country-wide ruling. Washington DC has tried to pass several partial laws making it more onerous to own and carry a gun. For example, the DC government tried to say that revolver handguns were okay but semi-automatic pistols were not. (pretty big step down from complete outlawing of gun ownership, no?) Each attempt at a partial law like that has been undone by either Congress or the Supreme Court in that, the new law, in some way, blocks an individual's right to own and carry a loaded gun. If you believe in gun control, this is the worst nightmare that could have ever happened. It is permanent. And it is far-reaching.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377203,00.html
http://dcist.com/2008/07/24/in_a_post_today_imhoff.php

So, in summary, I do see this as the most viable legal option for Plaxico Burress. I'm not an attorney but I've got to think given how much is at stake for his career (and how much money he has), he will likely appeal any lower court ruling. I agree, he is not the "poster child" of the kind of responsible person to represent this issue, but I think his hand will be forced into going this route.

 

The link does not work

From your own link you obscure your original post, Justice Scalia is only in support of preventing the ""problem of handgun violence" by saying there are a "variety of tools" such as "measures regulating handguns" available. But he said that the "enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," which includes measures such as an "absolute prohibition of handguns.""

I am not promoting the wholesale banning of firearms, I am just saying that if I were to go out for a night on the town drinking and having a good time I would not be bringing my gun along with me because it is not a good idea and it would be bringing very little good either way depending on how the night turns out.

I do not, nor do I ever really want to live in NYC, you can be the bearer of bad news all you claim, but you are placing way too much commentary on a sentence long amendment than is reasonable. I do not care what "Conservatives always claimed ". Child molesters always claimed that if there is grass on the field, then play ball, but they are not right? Am i correct?

I agree on this point, these laws are stupid. A semi-auto glock, rifle, shotgun, or revolver will all kill if asked to. However, any responsible gun owner should not be bringing their firearm out for a night on the town, especially if they plan on stuffing it down their pants instead of properly holstering it, and/or obtaining proper licenses to carry it in their locale. I have not argued with you on the premise to the right to gun ownership, just that gun owners should face the need to be responsible for their decisions, or actions in Plaxico's case.

Plaxico is done for now. He has been Michael Vick'd and will probably do some time as you stated in your prior post. He made some extremely poor decisions. And all things considered, He hurt the NFL, the Giants, and professional athletes by his stupidity. A multi-millionaire of all people has very little excuse to make such poorly planned decisions, especially if you can hire profesionally trained off duty police officers to escort you for a miniscule fraction of the $206 grand he loses per game going forward.

In my opinion, if his case is going to make it to the supreme court he is going to lose. Plax is not a role model. He is not a savior of the second amendment, He is a gun owner who made all of the wrong decisions and, by doing so, He reflected very poorly on every other gun owner who abides by the law in this country. I do not intend for this to be a negative attack on toggie by any means. Mr. Burress is an example of why these laws have came to be in the United States and he is certainly not ever going to become the next Charlton Heston through his actions. He has poorly represented anybody that owns a firearm and it would be a travesty if he was awarded in any way for his actions.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with most of what you say.

Plaxico Burress is in a very bad situation. He will have multiple serious charges against him. My prior posts only apply to the "possession of gun" charge. Obviously his other charges will be things like: carrying a concealed weapon without a CCW permit, discharging a weapon in public, shooting himself in the leg, and taking a gun into an establishment serving alcohol. These are all serious offenses and the 2nd Amendment tactic offers him no relief on those types of charges.

That said, I still think he may try to reduce the charges against him by appealing the gun possession charge. And I think the Supreme Court would rule in his favor on that one. (even though his character is not deserving of it - that is supposedly never something they factor in to their decision making process). My only interest in bringing up this specific angle to his situation is the fact that it could have a major impact on the future of the current NYC gun laws. I think it is only a matter of time before NYC becomes the next Washington DC that must abandon their current gun laws in order to be compliant with the latest rulings from the Supreme Court. I just thought it was worth pointing out that he probably has the financial resources to give it a run. And the motivation to give it a try. Afterall, it could mean 3.5 fewer years in prison for him.

 

I believe what's in bold & [ ] (my own addition) is the big deal. NYC has a zero-tolerance policy of unregistered, concealed hand-guns. There's really not much more to it.

My good friend's sister & my very close cousin are both attorneys in NYC (defense lawyers, at that). They both more-or-less had the same conclusion as to what I just stated above: the zero-tolerance policy of unregistered, concealed hand-guns within a borough of NYC. It's not all that pivotal at all in that he had a gun, but rather the other facets/details of the situation which have likely sealed his fate, at least for now.

Also, they (the aforementioned NYC lawyers) stated in uniformity (rather eerie, I might add) that anywhere else at anytime, he'd still be committing multiple crimes, so it's not the NYC gun-laws that are subject to Constitutional interpretation or privy to challenge.

Had it been merely possession of a loaded-handgun that was properly registered & he/himself possessing an up to date & current concealed-weapon permit, he plausibly & likely would've been able to work out a lesser deal w/o tenable incarceration, etc' (again, from the 2 NYC lawyers).

I/myself am not in the legal profession, so obviously a lot of the words/terms stated above aren't of my own. . .



(btw, I'm presently visiting NorVA for 1 month... damn it's colddd )

 

NO, it's because he's in New York.

If he would have been in Kansas City, San Diego or Minneapolis, it would be old news by now.

This is what you get when you want to play in the high-dollar media capital of the world (Eli....)

Here is Plaxico's problem:

If he 'walks', or gets a light sentence, then that sets a precedent, and EVERY OTHER criminal that is arrested for the same offenses will cite Plaxico's sentence when they come up for sentencing. You can't let a guy (Plaxico) walk with 5 years probation while the next guy gets 3.5 years in the slammer. The courts have wised up to that.

 

You forgot to carry the Cristal.