Dave Kopel, writing in the WSJ, takes up the defense of the knuckle-headed Plaxico Burress, star wide receiver for the NY Giants who shot himself in the thigh while carrying a concealed weapon in Manhattan sans permit. His gist - the constitutionality of the NYC permit laws could be successfully challenged as violating the Second Amendment.
Left unmentioned - since he is battling for his freedom and a $35 million five year contract, Mr. Burress has the money and incentive to see this fight through. And that suggests that prosecutors may prefer to settle for the sure thing and find some other charge or plea deal rather than risk a long court fight which results in this law being struck down.
It's too bad that Plaxico Burress is an otherwise unsympathetic punk - as a public relations excercise, rallying the public behind the right of spoiled, highly paid gangsta-rapper wanna-bes to fire off stray shots in public places won't be easy. Hmm, how does that go? When they came for the gangsta-rapper poseurs I was silent...
AROUND THE LEAGUE: Ann Althouse and Reason note the story. The WSJ Law Blog picks up an interesting anonymous comment:
No standing. Plaxico likely never applied for a NY permit, so he couldn’t have been injured by any restriction. As such, no concrete injury and no redressability.
Beats me - as a NJ resident Plaxico was not eligible for a NYC permit so he never applied. I suppose he could have applied and been rejected on those grounds, but is that really necessary to create standing? From another direction, he certainly has standing to challenge the law penalizing his lack of a permit since he is being charged under that law.
Here is a 1998 article by a Suzanne Novak questioning the constitutionality of the NY State permitting system.
There are plenty of ninny nannies out there who want to, as part of their "Europeanize the US" project, take away guns from Americans. Unfortunately, Plaxico has provided grist for their mill.
I do wish MSM would pay more attention to situations in which folks have used guns to fend off a robbery and save their lives or the lives of others.
If there were any justice in the world, Plaxico would go free but be required to take an intense training course in proper gun use and storage. He could use some of the bonus money he received from the NY Giants for signing his new contract with them (hopefully for Plaxico his bonus is not forfeitable due to this incident).
Unable to resist the temptation to go off topic, I will predict that the NY Giants will successfully defend their Super Bowl title without Plaxico (they've done fine when he hasn't played in the past).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 04, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Why do we need Burgess to finance and challenge this stupid infringement on basic American rights? I would be willing if some right-thinking 2nd Amendment warrior would take this on to provide my financial assistance. This isn't about that idiot but about all of our individual and collective right to own and pack heat. Plus, does anyone think he is the only Giant in New York having a party or eating at Smith and Wollensky who isn't packing?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | December 04, 2008 at 01:16 PM
dumbass carrying a gun in a nightclub? Come on! There is no justification except the threat from other gang bangers, various rap stars and the poverbial hangers on.
Yes, the NYC ban is unconstitutional, but I would think the WSJ has better things to do than defend a complete lunkhead.
Posted by: matt | December 04, 2008 at 01:23 PM
I'd love to see the New York law struck down for a variety of reasons. But although I am a life member of the NRA, I have no problem at all with laws requiring permits to carry concealed weapons outside the home, so long as the permits are reasonably available to law-abiding citizens who provide proof of proper training. And I would support a law imposing strict criminal liability on any moron who carried in his pocket a weapon with a round in the chamber and then discharged that weapon in a public place. New York's problem is that it doesn't seem to have any of the latter kinds of laws, and relies solely on its draconian permitting process. A pox on both parties.
And I, too, predict the Giants will repeat in the Super Bowl. Best team I've seen in several years.
P.S.--I'm feeling great, and really happy to be back. Tanned, rested and ready.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 04, 2008 at 01:42 PM
DOT: You have no idea how much you were missed (especially those last few weeks of the campaign from hell).
WELCOME BACK!
Posted by: centralcal | December 04, 2008 at 01:48 PM
How about a 21 gun salute for the above celebrity?
================================
Posted by: kim | December 04, 2008 at 01:51 PM
DoT - Welcome back, you have been missed.
This is not the case that I would pick to fight this NY Law. Too much distraction from the real issue at hand.
I predict that the Detroit Lions will go 0-16 this year, which I believe is a first for any NFL Team. Many of us in the Detroit Area, who do not go to the games, will be on-hand to watch the folly live.
After that, we will do what we always do: Watch the Red Wings instead.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | December 04, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Meaning the last game of the season, to clinch the 0-16 season...
Posted by: PDinDetroit | December 04, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Besides the 2nd Amendment, these laws also seem to violate Article IV, the "full faith and credit" clause.
Posted by: Mr. Ed | December 04, 2008 at 02:03 PM
It's great that your back, Danube of Thought.
And on the promised return date!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 04, 2008 at 02:04 PM
I don't know which thread to post this on, but I think it is kinda neat.
A Healthy Democracy - By the Numbers
(h/t the corner)
Posted by: centralcal | December 04, 2008 at 02:13 PM
There is no justification except the threat
True for most things involving guns.
Two NFL players have been murdered over the past two years, and there are only 1696 guys on the roster. Looks like plenty of threat to me.
Posted by: bgates | December 04, 2008 at 02:24 PM
YaY DOT! Punctual as ever!
Posted by: Jane | December 04, 2008 at 02:28 PM
My boyfriend's back and you're gonna be in trouble....*dancing and singing to see DoT back****
Posted by: clarice | December 04, 2008 at 03:00 PM
glad to have you back, DOT
Posted by: matt | December 04, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Thanks to all...
A couple of further thoughts:
I don't like the standing argument very much, just on the basis of the maxim that the law does not require one to do a useless act. He's prevented from getting a permit because he's a non-resident, and I would guess that that gives him standing in and of itself.
I also don't think the full faith and credit law requires one state to recognize a carry permit from another state. I'm pretty sure that the courts will allow each state to set its own standards.
One of the two NFL murder victims was killed in his home, and might very well have saved himself if he'd had a weapon--and very few people in this country oppose the right to keep a weapon for home defense. The other guy, as I recall, was shot outside a club, and a weapon wouldn't have helped him at all.
The Lions will be the first to go 0-16, should they make it. The 1976 Bucs were winless, but in a 14-game season.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 04, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Clarice,
Lest you forgot.....the LUN should focus the mind.
Posted by: Jane | December 04, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Okay Jane You win! We give up, life is over as we knew it. But it's alright because we know you are on our side.
Posted by: Laura | December 04, 2008 at 03:24 PM
DoT, you don't know me since I'm a silent lurker...but I know you from your wonderful, thoughtful posts, which I have missed very much these last terrible months. Welcome back!
Posted by: Depressed Atlas | December 04, 2008 at 03:25 PM
very few people in this country oppose the right to keep a weapon for home defense
Maybe so, but most of those that do are in government; I recall something about a "draconian permitting process" somewhere.
The other guy was killed in his car after leaving a club, by a thug who had had words with him at a nightclub earlier. In the wake of that incident, I doubt many of the players decided to stop going to the clubs, but I doubt any decided, "may as well leave my gun at home, it won't do me any good, provided the thug waits until I'm in my car to shoot me."
Posted by: bgates | December 04, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Jane. I really hope as we head into the New year this cheerleader type jejeune nonsense will end.*Stamping feet and pouting*
Posted by: clarice | December 04, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Okay Jane You win! We give up, life is over as we knew it.
Hehehehehheheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Posted by: Jane | December 04, 2008 at 03:43 PM
OK, Jane, you got Steyn to hold up a sign announcing you won. Can you get him to pose for a photograph decked out in a CENTRAL MASS ROCKS T-shirt??? :-))
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 04, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Those few who oppose possession for home defense do, indeed, exist in the government of the District of Columia--whose law has just been overturned--and in the State of New York, which unquestionably has had uniquely draconian ideas about gun possession for nearly a hundred years (see, e.g the Sullivan Act).
In any event, the NFL guy who was shot dead in his home by burglars who thought he was out of town (Sean Taylor) was not prohibited by any law from having a weapon in his home. Indeed, in all probabilitly he did have one, since he had been arrested in Florida two years earlier for pointing one at a man in a threatening manner. (He suspected the man of having stolen an all-terrain vehicle. Had he shot him, it would have been murder, regardless of whether the man had stolen the vehicle.)
I have no idea what NFL players may or may not have decided following these various incidents. Whether or not the guy in the car had decided to leave his gun at home or take it with him doesn't matter much, since if he had it he never got a chance to use it.
By and large, a general prudential rule is to avoid taking your recreation at spots where you think you may need a gun to defend yourself. You could get killed, you could kill someone unlawfully, or you could get arrested. But while not everyone follows either general prudential rules or the law, the fact that no one can prevent the PacMan Joneses or Plaxixo Burresses of this world from endangering the public does not mean we should not have laws against their doing so. The law in New York City simply goes to far.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 04, 2008 at 04:39 PM
DoT, hooray! Welcome back! I can't tell you how many times these last couple of months I wished you were here to weigh in with your succinct wit. Hope your break was good to you.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 04, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Great to see you back here, DoT.
Posted by: Elliott | December 04, 2008 at 06:34 PM
The NY City law is particularly draconian, even by NY State standards. Even if one possesses a NY State carry permit, after making it through the gauntlet, he or she still cannot carry in NY City without a separate NY City permit, almost impossible to get except for the politically connected. This forces a NY State resident with a valid carry permit, say some lady living in Yonkers who work nights in the Bronx, to leave her gun at home in order to cross the border to get to work.
Would it be Constitutional for every county, every town, every villiage, to have their own unique carry laws? Seems ripe for a challenge, but that's not related to Plaxico's case.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 04, 2008 at 06:51 PM
Can you get him to pose for a photograph decked out in a CENTRAL MASS ROCKS T-shirt??? :-))
Oh I thought I already posted that one.
Posted by: Jane | December 04, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Keep in mind that all the carry laws under discussion here, and the one applicable to Burress, are handgun laws (I think). As nearly as I can determine, even in New York City you can get a shotgun if you aren't a crook, and a shotgun is fine for home defense--probably better than a handgun for most people.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 04, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Wow. OT, but between the bailouts and now 10% of Americans are on food stamps (!), where can *I* apply for some free money? I can't keep supporting all these freeloaders without some compensation!
Probably not many here on the dole, though, huh? Perhaps this isn't the best place to ask that question.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 04, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Perhaps I should add that many people on food stamps are fine citizens, just down on their luck. I still I think I might be needing a bailout.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 04, 2008 at 07:21 PM
This is just hysterical. (Hey, it's a slow news day.)
130,000 Boobs Bobbing On The Sea
Piracy???
Posted by: centralcal | December 04, 2008 at 07:45 PM
No, Jane. That was the one that was NSFW.
DOT: The has been righted on its axis! Welcome back.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 04, 2008 at 08:31 PM
♥ ♥ ♥ Dot is Back! ♥ ♥ ♥
We missed you!
Posted by: Ann | December 04, 2008 at 08:36 PM
DOT..Welcome, home! My hearts a'racing! You were missed. I hope all is well.
Best news EVAH!
Posted by: glenda waggoner | December 04, 2008 at 09:09 PM
As pointed out at AoS, even if Plaxidioto had a carry permit, having drank some alc would've put him at odds with the law. Also what kind of nutjob shoves a Glock into the waistband of sweatpants?? In a just world the Glock would've discharged and shot off de fambly jewels and kept that mental defective from sending any flawed genetic material on to another generation.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 04, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Tom,
Would you consider a Christmas link for gift ideas this year? It might be fun and I have some suggestions for men that don't know what to get their gal. I sure could use some ideas from the men here at JOM.
Let's face it, we aren't reading papers or watching the news. We might as well help each other make someone happy since none of us are.
I will start:
Gifts under $100 for women
French soap by Ranc'e. My favorite is Creme grasse savon de beaute: Rance' Jasmine Creme Soap
I give this to my girl friends and they adore it.
Gifts under $100 for men
Jim Harrison books: All of them, especially "Dalva"
My favorite is "Legends of the Fall".
Posted by: Ann | December 05, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Thomas C,
Is this close enough?
Posted by: Caro | December 05, 2008 at 01:35 AM
Caro, More photos, More photos, More photos!!!
How did you do that? Email me at: [email protected] if you get a chance. Bravo!!!
Posted by: Ann | December 05, 2008 at 01:48 AM
And a welcome back to DoT from the Eurobabes.
Posted by: Caro | December 05, 2008 at 01:55 AM
That's great, Caro. You and I are the yin and yang of online photo skills. You do amazing things with photos, while I am still figuring out which button to press to take the initial shot from my Blackberry.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 05, 2008 at 07:56 AM
Don't worry Tom, I'm trying to figure out what "blackberry" stands for.
Caro those are simply FAB!
More pix more pix!
Posted by: Jane | December 05, 2008 at 08:04 AM
Welcome back DoT, you old fart.
Posted by: larry | December 05, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Caro, are you sure those are real?
Posted by: clarice | December 05, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Okay. To start, Burress is an idiot. Putting a loaded gun in your waistband only works in Hollywood movies. The dude makes (or use to make) many dollars. He couldn't spend a few of those on a holster?
Be that as it may, the Sullivan Law has always been a "racist" joke. It - as most gun laws are - is all about keeping guns out of the hands of the "wrong" people (read minorities, immigrants, etc., etc.). It's main effect is to make sure some guy - or worse - some gal, is walking home in the South Bronx unarmed; while celebrities - who live in security buildings and also have bodyguards - find it fairly easy to get permits.
But, we shouldn't expect more from a city whose anti gun fervor goes so far as to arm it's Auxiliary Police with only a nightstick (got two of them killed with that stupidity).
Burress should challenge the law. It's not as if he's going to have much to do in the near future.
Posted by: mdgiles | December 05, 2008 at 09:30 AM
mdgiles, what a welcome addition you are. (TRF)
Posted by: clarice | December 05, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Great Job Caro
Why didn't we take more pictures?
Posted by: Laura | December 05, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Further thanks to all of you for your welcoming remarks.
I think the law that Burress has been charged with is a New York City ordinance, not the Sullivan Law (which was indeed enacted in order to keep guns out of the hands of blacks).
Extraneus's question is interesting to me(differing laws in every municipality, etc.). I'm not sure it's a constitutional issue, but it may be one of preemption. In some areas, when the feds enact a law it preempts the states from enacting conflictin laws. Similarly, state laws can preempt counties and cities from legislating in the same area.
I think that the California Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that San Francisco could not enact gun control laws more restrictive than those of the state. God knows what the New York courts would do. But I think there are a lot of interesting grounds for challenging the 3 1/2 year law recently enacted by Bloomberg. Remember, this clown actually sent the cops to arrest the Rolling Stones when they lit up a cigarette on stage near the end of a concert. (The cops arrived too late.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 05, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Just a minor quibble with the Captain's citation of AoS regarding Plaxico's alcohol use. It may not be smart to do, but I don't think there's anything in NY penal law prohibiting a permit holder from drinking while carrying (see section 265).
Still, if he didn't have a permit, and hadn't been denied a permit, how could he challenge the law?
Posted by: Extraneus | December 05, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Further thanks to all of you for your welcoming remarks.
I think the law that Burress has been charged with is a New York City ordinance, not the Sullivan Law (which was indeed enacted in order to keep guns out of the hands of blacks).
Extraneus's question is interesting to me(differing laws in every municipality, etc.). I'm not sure it's a constitutional issue, but it may be one of preemption. In some areas, when the feds enact a law it preempts the states from enacting conflictin laws. Similarly, state laws can preempt counties and cities from legislating in the same area.
The California courts have recently ruled that San Francisco could not enact gun control laws more restrictive than those of the state. LUN.
God knows what the New York courts would do. But I think there are a lot of interesting grounds for challenging the 3 1/2 year law recently enacted by Bloomberg. Remember, this clown actually sent the cops to arrest the Rolling Stones when they lit up a cigarette on stage near the end of a concert. (The cops arrived too late.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 05, 2008 at 10:33 AM
My guess is that Burress could challenge it on the ground that the ordinance on its face makes it futile for him to apply, so he needn't go through the pointless exercise of the application process. But I wouldn't want to bet money on my guess.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 05, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Here's a link to NY penal laws.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 05, 2008 at 10:39 AM
DoT!!!!!!
Posted by: MayBee | December 05, 2008 at 10:41 AM
What, no blacks in the list of famous NY City permit holders?
Posted by: Extraneus | December 05, 2008 at 10:45 AM
DoT: By the way, congrats on the CIC trophy. Wait til next year.
Posted by: larry | December 05, 2008 at 11:12 AM
The California courts have recently ruled that San Francisco could not enact gun control laws more restrictive than those of the state.
Nice to see you back DOT.
The NRA and other gun rights groups routinely use state preemption here in California to stop local ordinances.
It's quite effective, as the state legislature and courts know only too well the power state government would lose were preemption ever eliminated or eroded. While CA cities are often near marxist nightmares the rural counties and towns are wild west conservatives and the ensuing policy divisions the loss of preemption would allow would, I believe, result in the political division of the state, a result devoutly to be desired by those of us who hate what our beloved state has become.
Posted by: Barney Frank | December 05, 2008 at 11:33 AM
**near-marxist**
Posted by: Barney Frank | December 05, 2008 at 11:33 AM
what is even more loony about the New York City law is that even police officers cannot carry off duty. For some reason, the state has not bothered to challenge the law. I guess it's a New York thing.
Posted by: matt | December 05, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Speaking of guns and football, I just had the honor to watch the entire Simpson sentencing hearing, culminating in what appears to be a sentence of a maximum of 33 years, with no eligibility for parole until nine years. And off he went in shacles and chains, to await his introduction to his new friends in the Aryan Nation.
Nice to see Fred and Kim Goldman in the courtroom, and expressing great satisfaction afterward.
Judge Jackie Glass for Woman of the Year. And she's kinda hot.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 05, 2008 at 04:37 PM
*shackles*
(Back in midseason form already.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 05, 2008 at 04:38 PM
It would be great if the Goldman's petitioned Clark County for all the memorabilia evidence - and were upheld.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 05, 2008 at 05:13 PM
I don't know about the hot part, but she was a pretty spectacular Judge in this case.
Posted by: Jane | December 05, 2008 at 05:13 PM
How long before it gets through OJ's craziness that he is in jail and is not getting out for a long time----and no one gives a damn?
Posted by: clarice | December 05, 2008 at 05:22 PM
She denied that motion for bail practically before it was out of the defense attorney's mouth.
====================================
Posted by: kim | December 05, 2008 at 05:34 PM
Interestingly enough, it used to be, and may still be, easy for doctors to get a concealed carry permit. I think back in the day of house calls, their little black bags were targets.
======================================
Posted by: kim | December 05, 2008 at 05:36 PM
In NYC.
====
Posted by: kim | December 05, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Plaxico was in a nightclub. He might have had something to drink. Booze and guns do not mix. Ever.
Plaxico could afford an armed bodyguard, who hopefully would remain sober.
Permitting guns to the people of the Bronx, for example, would be little different than giving out guns to the population of a prison. The results would be similar.
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Posted by: Fred | December 07, 2008 at 05:37 AM
Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Hellgate London gold .
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 10:40 PM