Should Gun Rights be Reciprocal Among States? Tenn. Women Arrested in NYC for Carrying Legal Gun at 9/11 Memorial

Nick Gillespie | 12.30.2011 9:34 AM

The New York Post (founded by Alexander Hamilton, but don't hold that against the current version) reports on the strange case of Meredith Graves, a 39-year-old medical student and nurse from Tennessee who was arrested for illegally carrying - and voluntarily surrendering - a gun at Manhattan's 9/11 Memorial. Graves is licensed to carry in Tennessee and was in New York for a job interview, reports the Post, when she and her husband visited the memorial. Upon seeing a sign saying no weapons allowed, says the Post, she realized she was carrying a .32 caliber pistol and inquired about how to declare it:

When she got to that section, she asked another cop, "We have this gun — can we check it in here? We [my husband and I] are not law-enforcement."

That's when she was arrested.

Graves, who has a full legal carry permit in Tennessee, was locked up on a weapons-possession charge and held on $2,000 bond that she posted yesterday. She is due in court on March 19.

She'll soon find out exactly how serious New York City is about illegal guns. The Manhattan DA's Office is pursuing a conviction on felony gun possession — carrying a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years….

The Post quotes her mother making the case that gun rights should not be subject to state infringements:

"You'd think states would reciprocate with the Second Amendment. She has a license to carry in Tennessee," said her mother-in-law, who lives in Manchester, NJ.

Bonus anonymous Volunteer State voice whose opinion of New York probably couldn't have gotten any lower anyhow:

"Everyone down there carries, and she just forgot," said the woman, who would not give her name. "She was being honest, and this is the treatment they give innocent people."

The Post notes that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has made a huge push against illegal guns in the city.

Whole story here.

So what do you think, kind readers? While I think most reasonable people would agree that prosecuting such a case is a monumental waste of law enforcement resources, what about the case for reciprocity in gun laws? Assuming New York's and the city's laws pass constitutional muster, isn't this just one more case of respecting local differences (ironically, that sort of federalist-localist claim is more typically associated with the South than New Yawk City)?

If every place in America is forced to be just like every other place when it comes all laws and regulation and taxes and collective bargaining and trans fat and this and that (including gay marriage, come to think of it), isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? Or should the standard for gun rights and many other things (free speech, religious liberty, not having to quarter soldiers, etc.) ultimately be set at the highest level possible? What do you think is the way to decide which rights get special protection and which ones don't?

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Ron Paul vs. Obama, D.C. Must Pay for Violating Second Amendment, Michele Bachman Continues to Fall

Hide Comments (429)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Egalitarian Clause 13 years ago

2A = Egalitarian Clause.

Pull that on a liberal friend tomorrow night.
1. Info for your liberal friends 13 years ago
  
  Humans evolved to be egalitarian, and only in an egalitarian Non-State society do humans behave as "autonomous and sovereign" individuals who "bow to no political power." (Service, 1975)
  
  The early agricultural city-Statist (civilization) settlers from Europe greatly admired the egalitarian nature of the Non-State tribes and bands they observed, and this rebellion against hierarchy carried into Jefferson's "all men are created equal."
  
  It also destroyed the hierarchical divine right of kings in France and gave that country the banner of "libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?."
  
  Much of this egalitarian Non-State band and tribal influence is documented in anthropologist Jack Weatherford's Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World.
  
  It's no wonder that anthropologist Elman Service observed that "Many people living in non-state societies enjoy lifeways that a number of Americans seem intent on reinventing?such as close association with the land, small group size, and emphasis on oral traditions."
  
  It's a real shame that so-called "libertarians" and "anarchists" have such a dim view of egalitarianism. Only with equal sociopolitical power can there be liberty. If there is hierarchy, that means somebody is Lording-over somebody else.
  
  It reveals the hidden intent of those who, against clear evolutionary evidence, purport that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature: they want to Lord over others. These smooth-talking economic "social dominator" types cleverly whitewash their hierarchical intent in a toxic mimicry of freedom. I no longer am fooled by their scheme.
  1. KPres 13 years ago
    
    Not true. Primitive societies weren't egalitarian by design, only (somewhat) in outcome because the hunter-gatherer economy doesn't by nature present opportunity for advancement or excellence. One's body was the only significant form of productive capital, and most human bodies are relatively similar (though the primitive males did dominate the females to a degree for that reason). The continued development of tools and technology, however, introduced the possibility of creating large discrepancies in productive outcome, which leads to the noticeable inequality you find today. Still, the seeds for that inequality existed in the primitives the same as in moderns.
    
    It's also false that primitives didn't have property. In fact they did. But they didn't generally have vast sums of property because they didn't have the technology to protect or control vast sums of property. Plus, as in the case with land, the small populations meant there was little scarcity regarding the available resources, and without scarcity, there's no tragedy of commons, and consequently less need for personal property. They did have the will to property, though, as exhibited by the bloody territorial disputes they engaged in where land did become scarce and boundaries had to be established.
    1. Humans are egalitarian 13 years ago
      
      Human egalitarianism is clearly established in evolutionary biology, anthropological, and ethnological sciences.
      
      Band and Tribe Non-State sociopolitical typology are observed to be egalitarian. Low Sexual Dimorphism, and zero sexual dimorphism, as compared to our evolutionary primate cousins, are corroborating evolutionary-biological evidence.
      
      Bloody territorial disputes? In your city-Statist wet dreams? They're not observed in foragers.
      
      "Primal peoples did not fight over areas in which separate groups might converge in their gathering and hunting. At least 'territorial' struggles are not part of the ethnographic literature and they would seem even less likely to have occurred in prehistory when resources were greater and contact with civilization non-existent. Indeed, these peoples had no conception of private property..."
      ~Agriculture: Demon Engine of Civilization
      
      "Depictions of battle scenes, skirmishes and hand-to-hand combat are rare in hunter-gatherer art and when they do occur most often result from contact with agriculturalists or industrialized invaders," concludes Ta?on and Chippindale's study of Australian rock art. When conflict began to emerge, encounters rarely lasted more than half an hour, and if a death occurred both parties would retire at once.
      ~On the Origins of War
      
      You can quit with your religio-economic market fundamentalism catechism that glorifies agricultural city-Statism and start studying some empirical data.
  2. KPres 13 years ago
    
    "It's no wonder that anthropologist Elman Service observed that "Many people living in non-state societies enjoy lifeways that a number of Americans seem intent on reinventing?such as close association with the land, small group size, and emphasis on oral traditions."
    
    They're a minority, and most of them are driven by ideology. The majority prefer the comforts of modern civilization, which is why most people live in cities or suburban areas.
    1. The Libertarian Majority 13 years ago
      
      We've elected 2 dog catchers in the last century. Yay.
      
      They're a minority...
      
      So?
      
      comforts of modern civilization
      
      City-Statists do roll like that. You're one, Statist.
  3. KPres 13 years ago
    
    "It's a real shame that so-called 'libertarians' and 'anarchists' have such a dim view of egalitarianism."
    
    Nobody has a dim view of egalitarianism, just coerced egalitarianism (which is the only possible egalitarianism given the state of technology), and perhaps, the subjugation of reason to egalitarianism you find so prevalent among the left.
    1. White Indian 13 years ago
      
      Here's an example of the typical "free market" view of egalitarianism:
      
      Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
      by Murray N. Rothbard
      mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf
Rich 13 years ago

Come to think of it, driver's licenses should not be reciprocal.

Think of all the jobs this will create!
1. Tim 13 years ago
  
  NYC puts strict limits on numbers of Taxi licenses.
  1. Strict Land enTITLEments 13 years ago
    
    are a part of any agricultural city-State (civilization)
Old Soldier 13 years ago

1. NY gun laws are asinine and unconstitutional.

2. She is a fucking retard for not knowing #1.
1. albo 13 years ago
  
  About sums it up. There was a US map with reciprocity states posted in the Sheriff's office where I picked up my CCW. If it was a snake it would have bit me.
  
  You gotta know your reciprocity. In PA, it sucks because I really have to travel 'til I hit one.
2. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
  
  Like the Ocean City, MD cop said, "Your constitutional rights have nothing to do with the law." The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
  
  Sounds like a good reason to carry a gun.
3. jacob 13 years ago
  
  Have to agree with Old Soldier here.
  
  I am a concealed carry owner, and I damn well realize where I can and can't carry a firearm.
  
  That said, there is no way she deserves a minute of prison time. Fine her and send her on her way.
  1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
    
    I am a concealed carry owner, and I damn well realize where I can and can't carry a firearm.
    
    Yeah, but do you do it because you respect the law? (Do these laws make you safe, prosperous and fecund?) Or do you do it because you fear the force that comes from not following them? There's a real difference between protecting each man from all men versus simply enslaving all.
    1. jacob 13 years ago
      
      I'm not sure I get the difference between
      
      "you do it because you respect the law?" vs. "you do it because you fear the force that comes from not following them"
      
      I have to say that I fear the force that comes from not following. I live in Missouri and frequently drive through Illinois via I-70 to visit relatives in Ohio. I know that I can conceal carry in MO, IN, and OH, but there's no way I'd dream of doing so in IL.
  2. TrickyVic 13 years ago
    
    ""Fine her and send her on her way""
    
    I think she's looking at a mandatory 3 1/2 years.
    1. Old Soldier 13 years ago
      
      That's why it will go to Federal Court on appeal.
      1. adam 13 years ago
        
        Probably a good point. If they press this instead of going for a plea, NYC is probably risking getting its gun laws overturned if Institute for Justice or somesuch gets involved. A case like this could be a good vehicle- unlike most gun cases, where the defendant has or probably has committed other crimes and is therefore unsympathetic, she looks squeaky clean.
      2. Matt Knowles 13 years ago
        
        Which is possibly what she wanted all along...
        
        Old Soldier 13 years ago
        
        Not unless she has a whole lot of free time and lawyer money on her hands.
      3. RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        I doubt it will go to federal court on appeal. Look at what happened to Plaxico Burress, and he was rich and famous.
        
        Cartbran 13 years ago
        
        Well exactly. While there are slight differences in the facts between the two cases, those differences only amount to aggrievating circumstances for setencing. There is no doubt that either were in violation of the underlying offense and therefore guilty. I would be surprised if she was not sentenced to the mandatory minimum, however would fully expect early parole.
        
        Ignorance of the law is no excuse and so long as NYC's gun laws are Constitutional and there is a 10th Amendment, she should go to jail.
        
        Laws must be universally applicable or else there is only tyranny.
        
        People may have more sympathy for a TN nurse than a NY pro football player, but both broke the same law and must be punished according to it.
        
        PavePusher 13 years ago
        
        NYC's gun laws are Constitutional? Not from my perspective.
        
        jacob 13 years ago
        
        Completely different scenario. He did not have a concealed carry permit and the firearm actually discharged.
        
        Old Soldier 13 years ago
        
        I think he did have a Florida permit but it may have lapsed. He also did everything wrong possible in terms of carrying - including shooting himself.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Wow, Cartbran... you're harsh. This woman did nothing violent, did nothing to harm or defraud anyone else... why should she clog up a prison cell when there are people much, much more deserving?
4. John 13 years ago
  
  Hilarious
  1. robc 13 years ago
    
    you probably want to find a differen handle.
    1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
      
      He isn't the Baptist? Nor the Apostle?
5. Jarhead1982 13 years ago
  
  So what your saying is state law trumps Federal law and that the Gun Owners Protection ACT 1986, which has the very specific McLure Volkner ACT included.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....ct_of_1968
  
  One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, in a locked container.[7]
  An example of this would be that someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that they did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.
  
  So explain again WHO is the idiots violating the law?
  
  Oh yeah, like normal, it is the lying politicians, judges, and police of NYC who make the Mafia look like ametuers.
Crackers Boy 13 years ago

Should the individual states be free to allow slavery? No? Why not? (If you mention the Bill of Rights, then the answer is obvious.)

CB
1. Xenocles 13 years ago
  
  13th Amendment, obviously.
  1. Xenocles 13 years ago
    
    Also slavery is evil, but legally it's the 13th Amendment.
    1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
      
      Gun control is evil too.
    2. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Also, note the wording of the 13th:
      
      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
      
      Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
      
      This applies to everyone everywhere. No federal/state distinction nor, for that matter, any person/citizen distinction.
      
      The amendment also allows us to enslave prisoners, but that's a topic for another time.
      1. Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Right; the question was whether the states should be allowed to permit [antebellum style] slavery, and the constitutional answer is "Hell no." But is has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights anymore, even if you want to argue that the states' power to allow slavery was covered under the 10th. Any such implied power was superseded by the 13th.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Exactly. And it's why the amendment was worded the way it is. One of the few times the Constitution says, "Yo, fuck federalism--don't do this!"
        
        Brendan 13 years ago
        
        I always ask people about slavery and alcohol when they promote the broad interpretation of the commerce clause, usually saying that congress always had that power, etc.
        
        My question takes the form of:
        If Congress can ban drugs, guns, etc. and various activities related to them that take place solely within the border of one state, why couldn't congress simply ban slavery using the interstate commerce clause? Why the need for an amendment to the constitution?
        
        bosty 13 years ago
        
        Yep, same with the 18th. I never get a satisfactory answer.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Not that I don't agree with where you are going, but in slavery is a special case. It's specifically acknowledged as an institution--and implicitly sanctioned--under the Constitution.
        
        mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
        
        Uh, so is the right to bear arms.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Which is why Congress couldn't ban personal ownership of firearms. And, now that the Supreme Court has finally spoken, it's clear that the states can't, either. What's your point?
Stew 13 years ago

Pretty much every nasty thing that can be said about politics and politicians applies to NYC's gun control regime.

But since it has be so "successful" in controlling crime, clearly it cannot be altered without destroying the City.

I mean seriously, without Wall Street, NYC would be a coastal Detroit.
1. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  That's retarded.
2. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
  
  I agree with you. We live in NYC and I'm pretty happy with our gun law.
Kent 13 years ago

I'm just a dumb Canadian. I thought the Second Amendment said there was to be NO infringement of the right to bare arms?
1. Rev. Blue Moon 13 years ago
  
  /sarcasm
  
  Gee, Kent, it doesn't surprise me a foreigner like you cannot read English!
  1. Kent 13 years ago
    
    Damn....I'm pretty sure I can read English. It clearly says the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. To me, it says the govt can't stop people from carrying weapons.
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Bear/bare/boar/burrahobbit.
    2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      My state constitution says
      
      Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
      
      and if you do so you will be stopped, questioned, have your arms confiscated, and spend the night in jail on soon-to-be-dropped charges of Disorderly Conduct.
      1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        You can't question the right, but you can abuse those who exercise it. It's a clear loophole.
        
        Pi Guy 13 years ago
        
        +100
        
        Pro, shoulda directed mens rea comments below to you for legal(ish) review. Had a sort of philosophical question about the principle.
      2. Destrudo 13 years ago
        
        Yeah it's pretty rediculous, Sarc. Come take a stroll down congress street in portland and see how far you get before you get swarmed and tased by the Portland cops.
2. John 13 years ago
  
  The second amendment means whatever the voters think it means.
  1. Kent 13 years ago
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
3. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  Are you a lawyer? Because only someone with a law degree is capable of interpreting difficult language like "shall not be infringed".
  Mere non-lawyers might read the words to say what they actually say, but that's not what they really mean.
  The true meaning is too complex for anyone who is not a lawyer to understand.
  Same with "Congress shall make no law".
  A non-lawyer may think that that means Congress shall make no law, but again that is not the case.
  The true meaning is much more subtle than that, and only a person with a law degree is capable of ascertaining it.
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    Of course, the problem is that none of these rights as ever been viewed as truly absolute. For example, Congress can make laws relating to conspiracy, fraud, defamation, perjury, obscenity, etc. That being the case, it makes it easier to add on exceptions to the rule.
  2. Congress 13 years ago
    
    What we make are not "LAW laws".
4. Troy 13 years ago
  
  "dumb Canadian" is superflous. BTW, thanks for John Candy and Rush. May you rot in fucking hell for Bryan Adams.
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    Please. The Shat was the greatest gift of them all. That and them giving us all of the good Canadian hockey players so that we could win the Cup over and over and over and over again.
    1. Troy 13 years ago
      
      Re The Shat, point taken.
      1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        But I'm talkin' 'bout Shat!
        
        Rhywun 13 years ago
        
        Shut yo mouth!
  2. Restoras 13 years ago
    
    I'll take Bryan Adams over Celine.
  3. That cuts like a knife 13 years ago
  4. R 13 years ago
    
    Don't forget Beiber.
Rev. Blue Moon 13 years ago

The Bill of Rights is, to my mind, a minimum standard that was meant, even before the Fourteenth Amendment (and yes, I know that this puts me way in the minority of constitutional "scholars") to apply to the states.

New York should be able to decide how, when, and where its residents carry, but it should also at least recognize somewhat the credit that a license from another state carries.
Kent 13 years ago

Or does the Constitution and the amendments ONLY apply to the relationship between the people and the Federal govt, not State govts?
1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  Not with the 14th, and some amendments apply in all cases (like the 13th).
  1. Kent 13 years ago
    
    Sounds like a power grab to me.
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      In theory, it's a good thing.
      1. Tim 13 years ago
        
        In theory, ketchup is a vegetable.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        It's made of tomatoes, isn't it (dropping the tomato is a fruit argument for the moment)?
        
        R 13 years ago
        
        "Vegetable" is a culinary term, not a scientific one, and this is where all the problems come from. Basically, a vegetable was something you ate with dinner, while a fruit was something you had for desert.
        
        Biologically, all vegetables are actually roots, tubers, fruits, or some other part of the plant.
Lost_in_translation 13 years ago

If NYC wants to protect it's
Lost_in_translation 13 years ago

If NYC wants to protect it's precious retarded gun laws they'll plea bargain this down to a misdemeanor fine and send the wo
An on her way, else this will probably go to the supreme court.

When you catch a dolphin in a tuna net, you cut it out and sacrifice the tuna to save the dolphin or you have a big problem.
1. Brett L 13 years ago
  
  I'm thinking this is a perfect 2A test case. Woman who has passed some state's requirements for carrying arms attempts to comply with a reasonable standard (no guns in a particular building) and is arrested. Surely if full faith and credit applies to marriage licenses it applies to gun licenses issued by the state, no?
  1. Brendan 13 years ago
    
    No.
    
    Full faith and credit doesn't apply to licenses. It applies to acts of the court, of which marriage is one.
    
    A person's license to practice medicine, law, cosmetology, business, sell liquor, etc. are not automatically valid in any other state.
    
    Any validity of one states permit or license in another state is from unilateral recognition, reciprocal agreements, or interstate compacts.
    
    The last one is why your drivers license is usually valid in all 50 states and DC; it's also compacts that created the system that allows out-of-state drivers to be ticketed and sent on their way instead of immediately hauled before a magistrate.
    This compact will replace the existing two:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....._Agreement
    
    It's worth pointing out that drivers licenses aren't always valid in other states. Try being 17 with a valid out-of-state drivers license and driving through NYC, or 14-15 with a valid SD license and driving in ND, etc.
    
    The easy answer is that the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment forbids the states from infringing upon the rights of their citizens to bear arms. Congress is empowered to enact legislation to that effect.
    
    HOWEVER, once again, congress is choosing to abuse the already battered and deep fried commerce clause instead of using the 14th amendment.
    1. Brett L 13 years ago
      
      But none of these other licenses apply to rights codified in the BoR. She is obviously a reasonable person since she tried to comply with the no guns inside rule. She is found by a state with reasonable restrictions to be competent to carry. So is the standard then unreasonable?
      1. Brendan 13 years ago
        
        The requirement that she have a permit in the 1st place is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment as applied to the state via the 14th.
        
        This sort of standard for licensing is unreasonable from an equal protection/due process standpoint, regardless of the act being licensed/regulated.
        
        The license isn't required to be honored by other states using the full faith and credit clause, unless we want to say that the license or permit is a public Act; Record; or judicial Proceeding.
        
        Would a court issued permit from NYC to build a skyscraper on any land one owns allow that person to build one in downtown Concord (NH)?
        
        I don't need a permit to carry books or magazines. Any law that required me to have a permit to carry a magazine in public would be unconstitutional in and of itself.
        
        Even if we tolerated a series of laws that required a permit to carry concealed literature and I obtained that permit, then visited a state where my permit wasn't valid, my recourse should still be through the 1st amendment not interstate commerce or full faith and credit.
        
        Enjoy Every Sandwich 13 years ago
        
        I don't know how it is in other states, but my CCW was issued by the county circuit court. It's done in accordance with the applicable state law, but approval for a CCW comes from the court.
        
        So isn't that a judicial proceeding? At least as much as a marriage license?
        
        Master & Commander 13 years ago
        
        So the McClure Volkner ACT, a Federal law which was written and enacted as part of the 1986 Gun Onwers Protection Act just for this kind of occasion, can be ignored at the whim of the state, right, we get it!
2. TrickyVic 13 years ago
  
  She would probably lose. The issue will be about concealing. SCOTUS left plenty of wiggle room for the city in Heller. She's not a NYS citizen so her issue isn't the state denying her a firearm so it's not about a "total ban" for her.
  1. adam 13 years ago
    
    Concealing? She openly handed the gun to a police officer.
    1. wms 13 years ago
      
      Before or after she declared she had it? It's not clear from the NYP story.
      
      Constitutionality of the NY laws aside, anyone with a CCW permit should have known this was a dumb move, unless she really wants to be a test case.
  2. Pablo 13 years ago
    
    I agree she will probably lose as the Heller decision held that states can place restrictions on the carrying of guns in public.
    
    In theory you can carry legally in NY if you have a carry permit. I say "in theory" because in most of the state, esp. in NYC the only way to get a permit is if you are rich, famous or politically influential, and donate money to the right politicians. This is a flagrant violation of equal protection and Im still waiting for someone to challenge "may issue" CCW laws on that basis.
    1. Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
      
      Of course it violates EP. That's the entire point. No state can deny to any person within its borders the equal protection of the law. That applies both to the federal law, as well as local law.
      1. Pablo 13 years ago
        
        I'm referring to the fact that rich and well connected NYC residents can get permits but the peasantry cannot. That is not an interstate issue.
        
        This because "may issue" CCW laws invite corruption and give local officials the power to decide whether an applicant has "good cause" to carry a gun whatever the fuck that means.
    2. R 13 years ago
      
      I believe SAF is taking on several state may-issue laws based on those exact grounds. Don't know if NY's law is one of the ones being challenged, though.
Joe M 13 years ago

What happens to someone who attempts to turn in illegal drugs they've somehow discovered? Are they arrested? Otherwise, there is no incentive to ever assist the police in anything vaguely illegal, for fear of getting sucked into the legal vortex.
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  Last time I reported something to the police they ran me for warrants, searched me, ran me again, searched me again, questioned me, searched me again, and finally let me go without taking any action on what I reported.
  
  Did I ever mention that I hate cops?
  1. Tim 13 years ago
    
    I thought we were talking about Tuna.
2. R C Dean 13 years ago
  
  What happens to someone who attempts to turn in illegal drugs they've somehow discovered?
  
  We find them all the time on patients in our ER. My advice has always been "Flush them immediately; as long as you have them in your hand you are committing a crime. Tell no one you found them. Make no entry into the records, although you should be sure to do a tox screen on their blood."
  1. BladeDoc 13 years ago
    
    Heh, our ED policy is to leave 'em lay and have security (a licensed police force) pick them up. You can always tell the new guy who will pick up the packet (thereby entering the "chain of custody") or mention seeing it (thereby setting himself up to have to testify). The old hands are suddenly looking anywhere else when an unidentified packet falls out of someone's pocket/crotch/asscrack/mouth.
    1. Jumbie 13 years ago
      
      From the point of view of keeping the health workers safe from the (unjust) laws, I think BladeDoc has a better solution than RC.
      
      From the point of view of keeping the patient safe from the (unjust) laws, RC comes out the winner.
      
      I guess it's a matter of how brave you want to be in protecting yourself and your patient? I know I'm enough of a coward to not be flushing any evidence of a 'crime'.
    2. R C Dean 13 years ago
      
      We don't have our own pet licensed LEOs standing around. Its very difficult to treat a lot of patient without taking possession of their personal effects, so there is no way around our ER staff committing a crime. We can't/won't delay treatment until a cop shows up, so we have to take possession.
      
      Then there is the issue of calling the cops on your patients, which is something we try not to do unless the patients are threatening our staff. BladeDoc, what's the followup on your patients after a cop confiscates their dope?
      
      There is no legal requirement to not destroy evidence of a crime (unless, of course, there is a warrant or subpoena for the evidence, which there isn't). Flushing it is not a crime, and places our staff at no legal risk.
      
      To summarize:
      
      (1) Delaying treatment until a cop confiscates the dope places our staff at risk.
      
      (2) Holding the dope is a crime.
      
      (3) Flushing the dope is not a crime.
      
      The best way to minimize our staff's risk is to have them immediately flush it. That it keeps our patients out of trouble is just gravy.
      1. Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        "(3) Flushing the dope is not a crime."
        
        It certainly minimizes the chance of getting caught, but is destroying evidence really not a crime where you are?
        
        Brett L 13 years ago
        
        It isn't evidence until someone reports a crime.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        IANAL, but I don't think that interpretation holds, especially when the item being destroyed is contraband. Doesn't misprison or obstruction of justice also come into play here?
        
        Not that I support the drug laws, but I do think it's important to give accurate legal advice so the people you advise aren't blindsided when they follow it. Of course, as long as your people follow the 11th Commandment at all times they will be fine.
3. Rhywun 13 years ago
  
  "there is no incentive to ever assist the police in anything vaguely illegal, for fear of getting sucked into the legal vortex"
  
  Now you're catching on.
Live Free or Diet 13 years ago

Victim disarmament has always been the great, illegitimate goal of these laws. Your right to self-defense is based directly on your right to your life. Is there any privilege or immunity more basic than that? Arguably the right to earn a living. Any others? Damn few.

Besides, the text of the second amendment clearly states it is "the right of the people," it doesn't even restrict this to citizens or residents or any other narrower class. And this is confirmed for citizens by the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
1. Tim 13 years ago
  
  Because in NYC muggers vote Democrat, that's why.
  1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
    
    Bootleggers and Baptists, yeah, I know. It's still evil.
  2. Restoras 13 years ago
    
    Perhaps but so do the investment bankers.
2. GroundTruth 13 years ago
  
  Wow! Someone else who can read! Just about every reference in the Constitution is to "the people" and not "the citizens". Meaning *every person* that the government is dealing with. EVERY PERSON. PERIOD. I'm thinking about habeus corpus and looking at you Mr. President!
Ken Shultz 13 years ago

This reminds me of what happened to kwais, a commenter here at Hit & Run, when he was coming back on furlough from fighting in Afghanistan, as I recall...

He was catching a connecting flight in New York, on his way home, and despite carefully following all the rules in packing his weapon, which he uses--to fight the people who perpetrated a terrorist attack on New York City--the city of New York arrested him for having a firearm in the airport!

The judge and the police all apologized profusely for processing him, but they wouldn't just let him go. This has forever colored my view of the gun laws in New York City.

If the gun laws in New York City are so inflexible--that they charge Americans on their way home who are fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban for having a firearm?

Then, yes, New York City's gun laws are asinine.
1. Kent 13 years ago
  
  Karma's a bitch.
  1. Rev. Blue Moon 13 years ago
    
    Care to flesh that one out?
    1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
      
      I think he means that New York City has karma because in trying to stop people from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, they ended up embarrassing themselves by detaining someone who was fighting the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 against them.
      
      In other words, the Karma is New York City's. They made themselves look foolish and ungrateful when they bothered kwais.
      1. Pablo 13 years ago
        
        Maybe it's the soldier's karma. In Afghanistan was he invading homes going door to door and confiscating the residents' weapons?
        
        Jarious 13 years ago
        
        You would know this because you were a ZETA or Federales at one time kicking down the door of Mexican citizens so no one could shoot back at you while you committed all your crimes eh Pancho?
2. Jumbie 13 years ago
  
  I remember that!
  
  Whatever happened with the case?
  
  And where's Kwais these days?
  1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
    
    He still shows up around here every once in a while.
    
    I always like seeing his username, knowing he's okay.
    1. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
      
      I havent seen a lot of old names for a while. And ever since J Sub I now assume the worst.
      1. jacob 13 years ago
        
        Remember Chad? Sean Malone? And of course J sub D.
        
        A lot of the folks that were frequent posters aren't around as much.
        
        Nipplemancer 13 years ago
        
        Sean still posts occasionally but stays away because of the tolls. I still talk to him on the twitter box.
        
        RobSmalls 13 years ago
        
        Sean doesn't have an EZ-Pass?
3. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  "The feds have rules, the airlines have rules, the airports have rules and the states have rules. They are not necessarily consistent or sensible, but all those rules have one thing in common ? the well-meaning but unwary traveler with firearms who messes up even a little can be in a world of hurt."
  
  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c.....more-90217
4. Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
  
  Fascists who propagate these unconstitutional violations of the rights of the citizens of the Republic belong at the end of a rope over a light post, not wearing a government badge or cross dressing and sitting on an elevated platform.
Bob 13 years ago

Fuck NYC. Another reason not to go there.
robc 13 years ago

NYC's law dont pass constitutional muster, so the premise is invalid.
Tim 13 years ago

Thank goodness they didn't find her salt shaker.
1. Happy Boy 13 years ago
  
  I heard Jimmy Buffett was arrested in NYC for his lost shaker assault.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

A state or city government should be no more able to infringe upon the rights of citizens than the federal government. Citizens should not be stopped from self protection by carrying firearms. (Especially in NYC.)
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  If citizens are armed then the lives of police might be in danger when they abuse their power.
  The right of the police to intimidate and bully citizens around far outweighs the right of mere citizens to protect their lives and property, so it follows that citizens should be disarmed and fiercely punished if they dare to exercise their "right" to self protection.
  Next you'll be saying that people actually own their own bodies and have the right to consume whatever they want.
  Ha!
  You are property of the government.
  1. Ronald Reagan 13 years ago
    
    I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to share my Mulford Act with you.
2. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  It was only recently (under the Chicago case) that SCOTUS held that 2nd Amendment was incorporated under the 14th as a limitation on state governments.
  
  SCOTUS back in the bad old days ruled that the Bill of Rights were only limitations on the federal government, not the states. Then, after the 14th amendment SCOTUS has individually determined whether specific amendments within the bill of rights (1st/5th and now 2nd etc) were limitations on state governments as well.
John 13 years ago

Second amendment trumps the CCP. IMHO, you should try to obey the state laws the best you can in regard to reciprocity. In TN, you can carry in the open, but go to FL and the reciprocity of your CCP is good but you should know that they want you to actually have your weapon concealed. I think this is fair. Any jurisdiction law that bans guns altogether is just not constitutional.
Troy 13 years ago

New York fucking sucks. People, you want to see something cool? Go to Sedona, Arizona.
1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
  
  Could you be more specific? 3000 clicks is a bit outside my usual commute.
  1. Name Nomad 13 years ago
    
    It's full of hippies who look for magic vortexes. I guess he thinks hippies are pretty cool?
2. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  I've been there. It's like a New Age paradise. I achieved total consciousness for a split second as I sat in a spiritual vortex, eating some chips and a nice, spiritually harmonic guacamole.
3. Restoras 13 years ago
  
  I live here and cant attest to this statement. It does suck.
Ken Shultz 13 years ago

"What do you think is the way to decide which rights get special protection and which ones don't?"

I'm not sure the standard needs to be codified in law.

To me, the case in question here looks like a standard mens rea question. If the standard is that a prosecutor needs to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had criminal intent, then that's a good enough standard for me.

When we codify things in law, we tend to just create more problems than we solve.

Seeing the steady demise of mens rea as a standard for justice is one of the more undereported stories IMO--especially in regards to regulatory agencies.

If a prosecutor can't convince a jury that you had mens rea when you destroyed the wetlands or shot an endangered species, then government agencies shouldn't be able to deprive you of your life, liberty or property.

Mens rea appears to be completely absent in this case, and although the police have a right to arrest her, I don't think any jury should convict her.
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  I don't think intent matters anymore.
  The law is the law is the law, and that is the only standard.
  1. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
    
    I don't think intent matters anymore.
    
    Intent only matters when writing law, not enforcing it.
2. Applederry 13 years ago
  
  You make a good point about mens rea in a case like this, but I'm not so sure it can be applied everywhere, particularly in regulatory matters you mention.
  
  If a company unintentionally destroy some wetlands, wetlands that happen to be a part of my property, do they get off free? Harm has still been done to me and my property even if they didn't mean to cause it. Of course, this objection is based on the idea of a regulatory system based on harm, rather than feel good environmental politics.
  
  While I also think they shouldn't convict her, I wouldn't be outraged if she was slapped with a $100 fine before being sent back to TN.
  1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
    
    Well, men rea applies to the criminal prosecution. You would still be entitled to pursue restitution of damages as a civil matter. Similar to a car accident where there was no criminal intent, yet the person responsible for the accident is fiscally liable.
  2. Enjoy Every Sandwich 13 years ago
    
    If a company unintentionally destroy some wetlands, wetlands that happen to be a part of my property, do they get off free? Harm has still been done to me and my property even if they didn't mean to cause it.
    
    That would be a matter for civil court, not criminal court.
  3. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
    
    I have sometimes had to deal with mapping any potential wetlands on our development properties. When we map that, some of the maps show potential wetlands areas that are less than 6 inches wide and one half inch deep. One of my properties had dozens of them like that.
    
    Each one of those puddles potential wetland areas required both wet season and dry season tests for fairy shrimp, an endangered species--and that means we have to pay 6 months of property tax, insurance and interest on the land loan before we find out whether we can even grade the property, much less develop it.
    
    If a less sophisticated farmer, who doesn't know anything about the vagaries of state and federal law, somewhere, just goes ahead and plowed over some of those puddles? Both the state Fish and Wildlife and the feds who enforce that stuff, they all carry badges and guns.
    
    The penalties for destroying wetlands are onerous--to the point that they can destroy a farm--and there are criminal penalties as well. Why you shouldn't need a jury to convict a farmer in such situations is beyond me.
    
    It's the same thing with a robbery and shooting! The fact is that if a robber shoots you in the face during a robbery, and the prosecutor can't convince a jury that the perpetrator is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
    
    Then the perpetrator gets off scott free!
    
    And that is exactly as it should be. Otherwise, you can take the perpetrator to civil court, where the standard of proof isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.
    1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
      
      Each one of those puddles potential wetland areas required both wet season and dry season tests for fairy shrimp, an endangered species.
      
      I don't think most people realize that some endangered species are microscopic.
      
      Think about that.
      
      Federal agencies apply a strict liability standard for destroying an endangered species--that the perpetrators can't see with their eyes.
      
      And the penalties are onerous. Why shouldn't people get a jury trial for something like that?
    2. Applederry 13 years ago
      
      I didn't mean to suggest that a jury trial shouldn't be the standard rather than agency fiat, but fair enough point on the criminal/civil tort difference.
      1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
        
        It's also easy to commit that crime without ever realizing it.
        
        With no intent whatsoever.
        
        Puddles!
        
        http://www.vernalpool.org/BSW/.....s/M-11.htm
        
        And if somebody built that wall after the pool was already there? I'd hate to be that person.
        
        We had some wetlands that formed because, unbeknownst to us, the fire department was doing all their drills and testing their equipment by blowing tons of water on our property from their firetrucks.
        
        It didn't matter how the water got there. Only that it was there. Most people don't know that. And if you screw with it?
        
        Run for the hills, Ma Barker!
Alan 13 years ago

I'm all for federalism in most cases, but certain essential rights - such as the right to self defense - are simply too important not to make reciprocal. As a slight compromise, I might be willing to allow some regulation on such things, so long as there was a maximum sentence for offenses in certain categories - somewhere along the line of a $100 fine or one night in prison.

That way, New York could enforce their stupid gun regulations on visitors without causing too much trouble if someone forgets that they're visiting a backwards state, and Tennessee might be able to ban words it considers obscene, without creating too much trouble for visitors who forget that they're visiting a backwards state.
Appalachian Australian 13 years ago

The 2nd amendment should apply in other states as equally as the 14th amendment does.

In any case, since carrying a defensive weapon is permitted by the 2nd amendment, and the 2nd amendment is (or should) be incorporated against the states, citizens should have the right to carry in NYC.
1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  Under the recent Chicago case, the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

The real lesson here is to NOT go to police for anything. Don't ask for help, don't volunteer information. Nothing good can come of it for you. They see you as an enemy.
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  I learned that one a long time ago.
  
  I went over the hood of a car that ran a red light so they charged me with OUI on a bicycle.
  
  My home was burglarized so they searched it for drugs and left without filing a report after not finding anything .
  
  I can't count the number of times they stopped me for walking down the street so they could run me for warrants and express their disappointment at having no reason to lock me up.
  
  Did I ever mention that I hate cops?
2. Pablo 13 years ago
  
  Agree 100%. If you are being attacked, they will arrive too late, so you have to handle the situation yourself. The police are not there to calm someone down or mediate an argument. Any time they are called there is no predicting who will get arrested, beaten, shot, or tazed.
silver haze 13 years ago

Poor girl. Guessing by the fact that she tried to hand over her gun to law enforcement she was no libertarian. She was probably the typical conservative, and is probably rethinking her "police are always the good guys" attitude.
1. jacob 13 years ago
  
  This
Liberty 13 years ago

... or, perhaps, if you're too dumb to know the law, you shouldn't go to New York, and belong more in the comfy confines of Tennessee?
1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  Or have and use a CCW/CCP if you don't understand it's limitations and restrictions.
Pi Guy 13 years ago

Mens rea anybody??

I agree with the not_knowing = stupid. But stupid NOT= criminal, not even ~criminal. And, more than that, reciprocity amongst the states of gun rights isn't even the issue at all, I think. The states don't have Constitutional authority in this area.

2nd Amendment: right to keep & bear arms

10th Amendment: if we didn't mention it (but we did; see #2 above) on this here piece o' parcment, it's left up to each of state to decide individually...

I wonder if this actually has the power to build on Heller and/or McDonald.

Disclosure: I've never owned a gun in my life. They scare me. When I was a short, scrawny 12-year old, shot a 12 guage and hurt my shoulder soooooo badly that I've only fired a gun a handful of times since.

I don't even like guns. I've just been doing what Ron Paul's been suggesting forever: read the F-ing Constitution. It's not just a good idea. It' the F-ing Highest Law ofthe Land!
1. Ronald Reagan 13 years ago
  
  Mens rea to me, at least, conflicts with the old adage (which is not constitutional nor lawful in the last) that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
  
  Of course, new legislation usually does not require intent to violate the law. The WSJ did a good article on this recently; the justification is that prosecutors say "it's easier to get convictions without proving intent".
  
  On the other hand, there might be one more convert from conservatism to libertarianism in New York city right now.
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    Easier to convict is a really shitty reason for doing something.
    
    If you don't distinguish between wrongful deeds and innocent ones, bad things can happen.
    1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      The job of a prosecutor is to get convictions.
      Period.
      Doesn't matter if the person is guilty or innocent.
      Convictions are all that matters.
      It is better to put an innocent person in prison than to lose an election because you look soft on crime.
      1. CatoTheElder 13 years ago
        
        That's why the WOD is so popular with prosecutors. It's easy to get a conviction when the banned substance is all the evidence needed to obtain a conviction. Real crimes require a lot of work to determine the identity of the perpetrator, locate and arrest the suspect, and convince a jury of his guilt. For drug crimes all the evidence it takes is the banned substance that defines the crime.
  2. Xenocles 13 years ago
    
    "[T]here might be one more convert from conservatism to libertarianism in New York city right now."
    
    Let's hope she moves somewhere felons can vote.
    1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      There is a reason why everything is a felony.
      By the time someone realizes that the people they have been voting for are sacks of shit, their right to vote for someone else is taken away from them.
    2. Brett L 13 years ago
      
      Eh. The percentage of felons who are black in Florida is so disproportionate to the population as a whole that the state has essentially set up an automatic process for getting your voting rights back. Crist, as worthless as he was, made it very easy. Scott tightened the rules a little, but the path is pretty direct. I think completing probation/parole successfully and not reoffending for five years guarantees return of rights upon petition. Right to own a firearm is sort of the same, except there are several classes of violent crime that automatically disqualify a felon from being eligible.
      
      I would prefer we had far fewer felonies, and the old process of petition and review were still workable, personally.
  3. CatoTheElder 13 years ago
    
    But her felony conviction will disenfranchise her.
2. R 13 years ago
  
  Disclosure: I've never owned a gun in my life. They scare me. When I was a short, scrawny 12-year old, shot a 12 guage and hurt my shoulder soooooo badly that I've only fired a gun a handful of times since.
  
  This is exactly why I fucking hate dickwads who start off newbie shooters with too much gun for them to handle. People are very easily converted into the shooting sports if you start them off small, like with a .22LR. Giving them a 12 gauge instead is like trying to get someone to start martial arts by drop kicking their face. It just scares them off.
? 13 years ago

Fuck NYC. Another reason not to go there.

I got FWD:FWD:-ed this woman's story yesterday with a THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR STRAYIN' INTO TO THE BIG CITY, PALIN-BITCH / poor-people-stay-out spin on it. This from a musician/small business owner who's struggling to afford to stay in Brooklyn since it was ethnically cleansed by White People?and who spent pretty much a whole decade calling Giuliani a Nazi for bringing the rain that washed the trash off the sidewalk. (And I sympathized; that's why I don't live there.)

The people who remain in the ghost of the former city want you not to go there, and they want you to say you won't go there, so they can say "And stay out! You can't handle this. Shit's too real."

Don't feed the troll. DPRK-style cultural isolation is what New Yorkers want, so let 'em have it. It's not the '70s anymore. They have nothing to offer.
1. Appalachian Australian 13 years ago
  
  It took living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan to turn a friend of mine from a traditional liberal into an almost scary at times conservative.
Enjoy Every Sandwich 13 years ago

Why would a right need "special protection"? If it needs "special protection" then it's a privilege, not a right.

But that's the way that the statists see all rights. They insist that rights "aren't absolute" and can be overridden by "compelling state interest". In other words, as far as they're concerned there is no such thing as a right.
1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  Once you agree that we surrender some portion of our freedom to the state, you face this sort of problem. Exactly how much of our rights do we cede to the state? The statist view is clearly that we cede them all, and the state loans them back to us when convenient.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    The statist view is that we have no rights that are not granted by government.
    Everything is illegal unless there is a law saying you may do it.
    1. just vic 13 years ago
      
      anyone read Animal Farm lately?
Xenocles 13 years ago

They had the MD attorney general on a radio show months ago and he was bragging about his recent finding that Maryland would recognize gay marriage licenses from other states (in lieu of actually granting them, which the legislature chose not to do). I emailed in praising the decision and expressing my excitement for his inevitable next finding recognizing out of state concealed carry permits. His response was something to the effect that CCW is different because it's explicitly banned in MD, and gay marriage is not.
P Brooks 13 years ago

The Post notes that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has made a huge push against illegal guns in the city.

Any gun in the possession of the little people is a threat to ORDER, and obviously illegal.
1. LarryA 13 years ago
  
  Mayor Mike Bloomberg has made a huge push against illegal guns outside the city as well, pushing for a variety of federal laws restricting purchase, and even running "sting" operations in other states. Which is why his crying "states rights" for reciprocity is so hypocritical.
Nathan 13 years ago

Headline is misleading. The gun was NOT legal in NY.

And, no, gun ownership and carry laws should not be reciprocal, because that is impossible. What you are really asking is if the most lenient and non-restrictive laws should be recognized by other states, but NOT THAT RESTRICTIVE LAWS BE RECOGNIZED.

True reciprocity would mean that Tennessee would have to respect NY's laws, just like NY would have to respect Tennessee's. It's not possible.

Imagine if Texas allowed anyone -- mentally ill, five time felons, serial killers, etc. -- to have a carry permit for $100. Would New York have to recognize that? Then a serial killer would just have to set up residence in TX, and be free to carry in NYC. Ludicrous.

Reciprocity only works for things like marriage, professional certifications, etc. It does not work on gun ownership or carry laws.
1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  You are mistaken. The recipricocity would require the permit holder to respect and follow the laws of the state's he enters. Similar to driver's licenses. I have a CA license but must abide by the laws of the state I'm driving in. For example, on a motorcycle I can lane share/split in CA but not other states.
  
  I'm not a fan of recipricocity for CCW because of the wide disparity of self-defense laws. In some states you can use lethal force in defense against rape, in other's you can't. A significant responsibility for a CCW holder to understand the laws of the state they are traveling through. So, in this case I don't have much sympathy for the woman, it was her responsibility to know the limitations on her CCW in terms of recipricocity.
  1. R 13 years ago
    
    What state prohibits using lethal force against rape? That's a new one on me. Shit, they ought to pin a medal on rapist shooters.
2. Chatroom Crank 13 years ago
  
  "mentally ill, five time felons, serial killers"
  Straw man. All of these are already barred from owning firearms by Federal law. Your "serial killer" reference is idiotic as well. How do you know they are serial killers unless they have already been convicted of felony murder?
  1. R 13 years ago
    
    Yup. Federal law sets the baseline for who can possess a gun, and there isn't a single state law that can over-ride that.
    
    Felons, illegal aliens, people who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, "drug abusers", and people who have been convicted of domestic violence are all currently prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
3. LarryA 13 years ago
  
  Imagine if Texas allowed anyone -- mentally ill, five time felons, serial killers, etc. -- to have a carry permit for $100. Would New York have to recognize that?
  
  Mostly it's the other way around. Shall-issue states tend to have stricter requirements for issuing CHLs and more limits on where they are valid, than the discretionary states that are kicking about national reciprocity. Which makes sense. If you only issue licenses to your cronies, why make the process difficult or limit where they can carry?
Pi Guy 13 years ago

@Ken Shultz|12.30.11 @ 10:27AM|#

Mens rea appears to be completely absent in this case...

A kilopardon to Ken, missed this, prlly when composing, but I have to think that Consitutional argument might even carry more weight. Suppose that she did it knowingly, even if she doesn't admit it? I'm not certain that she doesn't have standing even outside of knowing the laws of another state.

I'm not a lawyer but I have to believe that that's a core principle of mens rea in law. It's a way of identifying laws that are so stupid that it wouldn't occur to a reasonable person from out-of-town that the statute they violated custom or tradition they failed to observe act they committed shouldn't even be crimes in the first place.
1. Pi Guy 13 years ago
  
  CORRECTION: "that it wouldn't occur to a reasonable person ... act they committed should even be crimes in the first place."
  
  Why preview if you don't proof...
2. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  We've moved far away from crimes that are, in our culture, anyway, inherently obvious as crimes. That's part of the problem.
  
  With a few exceptions, mostly for more minor crimes, mens rea should always be an element to any crime. Taking that out really guts much of the concept of due process and the idea of punishments fitting the crime.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    Most crimes these days involve not submitting to the will of the political class.
    
    Crimes with victims don't matter unless they make the newspaper.
    Cops don't give a shit. Prosecutors don't give a shit. DA doesn't give a shit.
    
    The crimes that matter are crimes against the State.
    Violating conditions of parole (having a drink), violating conditions of bail (having a drink), possession of drugs, attempting to defend yourself, not obeying a traffic sign...
    
    That's the stuff they care about.
    
    Victim shmictim. Intent shmintent.
    
    Obey or be locked in a cage.
    1. CatoTheElder 13 years ago
      
      Sad, but true.
  2. BC 13 years ago
    
    With a few exceptions, mostly for more minor crimes, mens rea should always be an element to any crime.
    
    That's the way it's supposed to be. In fact, courts have warned legislatures that strict liability is only appropriate for minor offenses.
    
    The problem is that courts mostly refuse to strike down laws establishing strict liability crimes, for fear of looking soft on crime.
    
    (A related problem is that the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" aphorism is predicated on the idea that a person of average intelligence who wanted to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law could easily figure out what the law proscribed and prescribed. That hasn't been the case for at least a half-century.)
  3. BC 13 years ago
    
    With a few exceptions, mostly for more minor crimes, mens rea should always be an element to any crime.
    
    That's the way it's supposed to be. In fact, courts have warned legislatures that strict liability is only appropriate for minor offenses.
    
    The problem is that courts mostly refuse to strike down laws establishing strict liability crimes, for fear of looking soft on crime.
    
    (A related problem is that the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" aphorism is predicated on the idea that a person of average intelligence who wanted to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law could easily figure out what the law proscribed and prescribed. That hasn't been the case for at least a half-century.)
James in LA 13 years ago

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. She will be jailed, and rightfully so. Anyone who is so afraid of life they need to carry a gun in secret has far larger problems than a budding felony gun record in the state of New York.
1. Xenocles 13 years ago
  
  What does boot leather taste like? I've always been curious, but not enough to try it myself.
2. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  Wow, you make so much sense. I realize now I've been living in fear by taking numerous precautions against low-odds threats to my and family's life and well-being. So, I'm taking the following actions:
  - cancelling my life insurance
  - cancelling my property insurance
  - cancelling my car insurance
  - cancelling my medical insurance
  - throwing away my fire extinguishers
  - throwing away my escape ladder
  - ripping out the smoke detectors
  - throwing away my motorcycle safety gear (helmet/boots/gloves)
  - Stop wearing my seat belt when driving
  - Stop keeping my ABS/airbag systems operative on my car
  - Stop using the locks on my doors/windows
  - stop warning my kids about life's hazards or teaching them to be prepared
  - throwing out all my kids safety gear for bikes, scooters, etc.
  1. Xenocles 13 years ago
    
    But if you do some of these things, you'll be in violation of the law and tuff gais like James will want you in jail for being a coward or something.
    1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
      
      Yes, but I will no longer be 'afraid of life' by taking precautions to preserve and maintain it since I enjoy it so much. (Especially SCUBA and sky diving)
      
      Sadly, I live in CA (discretionary state) in a county where the sheriff will only allow you a permit if you demonstrate your good judgement via a large donation to his re-election fund.
      
      If you're a woman who's been raped, nearly beaten to death with your assailant back on the streets and vowing to finish it- Sorry, self-defense isn't sufficient justification according to folks like James in LA. Such a shame that she would be afraid of life to the point of wanting a weapon with her when she needs it. Those folks have learend the hard way about the police having no duty to protect them under warren vs DC and Castle Rock vs Gonzalez.
  2. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
    
    You are new here aren't you.
3. Restoras 13 years ago
  
  LA is the same if not worse than NY. As far as I'm concerned the sooner it slides into the Pacific the better.
4. Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
  
  You're the kind of guy I chose my handle for. I knew this would come in handy!
5. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
  
  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
  
  There's a question around negligence.
  
  Negligence doesn't require mens rea--and IMO shouldn't require mens rea.
  
  But in a negligent homicide, for instance, there has to be a homicide. I'm not a lawyer, but I think somebody has to get hurt!
  
  This woman hurt no one.
  
  If you don't want to get arrested and charged with a crime in NYC, then you should avoid packing heat.
  
  Whether someone who harmed no one and complied with the law to the best of her ability as soon as she realized she was breaking it should be convicted by a jury is another question entirely.
  
  Ignorance of the law may not always be an excuse, but being ignorant of the law by itself isn't a crime. If this goes to a jury, I suspect the defense will bring up the defendant's ignorance--and demonstrate it by showing that she complied with the law as soon as she realized she was breaking it.
  
  I think the jury should take that into consideration--that's basically all I'm trying to say here.
  1. BC 13 years ago
    
    I am a lawyer. And, respectfully, Ken: negligence is mens era. It's regarded as a culpable mental state.
    1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
      
      If I used a technical legal term incorrectly, then pardon my French.
      
      I appreciate that the law may treat negligence as though the perpetrators have a guilty mind, but in layman's terms, thoughtlessness to the point of negligence isn't the same thing as criminal intent. Hell, even the law doesn't treat people convicted for First Degree Murder like it treats people found guilty of negligent homicide, does it?
      
      Regardless, I'm stickin' by my point if I'm talkin' juror to juror. If we want to say this woman was criminally negligent, then show me the damage she did, and if she didn't know what she was doing was illegal, then I'm taking that into consideration as a juror.
6. jacob 13 years ago
  
  Go back to Huffington Post dumbass
Sean Caranna 13 years ago

It is incumbent on all of us to remain within the law wherever we go.

But 3.5 years in jail? For what!? Who has she harmed? What ill-intent did she display? A victimless violation of a malum prohibitum measure is typically considered a misdemeanor offence.

We must remain within the law but what if the statute or ordinance is itself unlawful? The preempted ordinances we have been fighting all over the state of Florida are a great example. Most of us who knew that we were protected by state law simply ignored no gun sighs in parks and city buildings. Any of us here would ignore a sign on the DMV door that said no (insert religion here) allowed. That sign would be clearly unconstitutional.

There is the valid matter of the right to bear arms in a state where a US Citizen or Legal Resident is a visitor. New York has no current method of giving the state's permission to exercise that fundamental right for a visitor. Regardless of where the right to bear arms stops; somewhere between your home and the hotel, car, generally on your person, or at a sensitive place. As a lawful visitor, you have a right to possess a firearm in the State of New York, the problem is that no court or NY state legislature has identified how and where.

There are lawsuits ongoing for some of this stuff and a lot of it will be resolved over the next decade. But just like abortion after Roe v. Wade, the pro-second amendment and anti-second amendment sides will never rest and these questions will never be fully settled.
P Brooks 13 years ago

what about the case for reciprocity in gun laws?

My innately suspicious nature leads me to believe reciprocity will be treated as an opportunity for "rationalization" (i.e., nationalization) of gun laws in its real world application, bring us all closer to New York than to Montana.

Fuck that.

And- the morons who voted for Bloomberg deserve him.
1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  Agreed. And, of course, for things outside of constitutional jurisdiction, states don't always provide "full faith and credit" to licensing regimes. Case in point are professional licenses.
  1. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
    
    To answer Nick's question I am a fan of the "if it says it in the big document it applies to all the little ones. Otherwise let the states handle it." And since it is NUMBER FUCKING 2 (yes I know the original BoR doesnt have numbers but I am using my Hper Bowl for effect) it should be obvious that is is a restriction on ALL governments withing the Federation.
me/dwc 13 years ago

There is no push against "illegal guns" in NYC. There is a massive push against legal ones. Nothing can be done about illegal guns, but they can sure go after those who wish to abide by the law.
1. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  Right, illegal guns are already illegal.
2. TrickyVic 13 years ago
  
  ""There is no push against "illegal guns" in NYC. There is a massive push against legal ones""
  
  No one is trying to take the guns from the NYPD.
P Brooks 13 years ago

Who has she harmed?

She undoubtedly scared the shit out of those cops. They're traumatized. They'll need months of time off and counseling at taxpayer expense.
1. Karl Hungus 13 years ago
  
  She undoubtedly scared the shit out of those cops. They're traumatized. They'll need months of time off and counseling at taxpayer expense.
  
  Per NYPD policy, that paid time off would only have been granted if they'd beaten the shit out of her. It's called "Paid Administrative Leave." NYPD makes its officers EARN their vacation.
Karl Hungus 13 years ago

Assuming New York's and the city's laws pass constitutional muster . . .

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution recognizes our right to bear (carry) arms, and that amendment has now been incororated against the states. So how could any law that allows this woman to be arrested for merely carrying a gun in public pass constitutional muster?
1. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
  
  Because the SCOTUS ruling in Heller left open the question of 'reasonable restrictions'. Read the rulings and orals, they're very interesting. They cited restricting weapons from certain classes of people- felons, mentally impaired as an example. Interestingly, if I remember correctly they didn't refer to weapon types, and in the orals the Solicitor General arguing in support of DC conceded that he didn't see how machine guns could be banned/restricted due to the reasoning in the lower court ruling being reviewed.
P Brooks 13 years ago

True reciprocity would mean that Tennessee would have to respect NY's laws

Okay; nobody from New York will be permitted to possess any firearms, even when they leave their home jurisdiction.

Happy now?
1. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  A person living in New York City could still get a New York State permit, or any number of out of state permits.
Res Publica Americana 13 years ago

It's heartbreaking -- New York City could, with a mere decade or so of classical liberalism in government, become not only totally free, but also the most prosperous, interesting city in the world. But that's not going to happen.

Also, dudes, Hong Kong's business environment is getting significantly shittier -- they recently upped the minimum wage and introduced a new permit system for retailers. Fuck Hong Kong -- if we're going to have to choose from any city, let's choose Tokyo, because it looks pretty ace.
1. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
  
  Forgot OT tags on second paragraph.
  1. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    well, kind of ironic, considering that tokyo/japan are amongst the most hostile places in the world for firearms rights.
    
    not to mention, civil liberties in general (get arrested, you have no right to an attorney for iirc 72 hrs, etc.)
    
    japan is a very law abiding and great culture. but on a civil rights front, it makes us look REALLY good.
    1. Restoras 13 years ago
      
      The Japanese are racist and so conformist it makes my head go explodey.
    2. R 13 years ago
      
      Don't forget their 99% conviction rate. If you get arrested, you're fucking hosed, whether you're guilty or not.
      1. Lord Tywin 13 years ago
        
        And the other fun fact(tm) about the Japanese justice system - they don't tell prisoners on death row when they will be executed. So a guy will sit there, usually for months, knowing that he may be dragged out at any minute to be hanged.
        
        Fucking hosed is right.
shamalamadingdong 13 years ago

The constitution (all of it) should be equally respected by all states. That is what the 14th amendment was all about. So, yes, there should be reciprocity for gun laws.
1. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
  
  Wouldn't that allow the KKK, Ron Paul supporters, and tea-baggers to invade Harlem and kill all the black people?
  1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
    
    small price to pay for civil liberties.
John 13 years ago

Reciprocity makes conceal and carry in one state conceal and carry in all states. As much as I like that result, I don't think it jives with federalism. Assuming a state's laws are in accordance with 2nd Amendment, I don't see why it has to recognize other state's conceal and carry.

Yeah that sucks, but you can't just like federalism when it goes your way.
1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  "Reciprocity makes conceal and carry in one state conceal and carry in all states."
  
  True.
  
  "Assuming a state's laws are in accordance with 2nd Amendment, I don't see why it has to recognize other state's conceal and carry."
  
  How can NY, NJ, et al, gun laws possibly be in accord with 2A though? How is it possible to interpret 2A to mean that a citizen is guilty of a felony for simply "keeping and bearing" arms?
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    They probably are not. But I take the post as asking the boarder questions of do states have to recognize other state's conceal and carry permits. To say they do, means that the 2nd Amendment mandates conceal and carry. I am not sure it does. I would go so far as to say it mandates allowing ownership of weapons and even open carry. But all the purposes of the 2nd Amendment can be achieved via open carry. Why can't a state prohibit concealed carry?
    1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      "shall not be infringed"
      1. Restoras 13 years ago
        
        infringe [?n?fr?nd?]
        vb
        1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
        2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        That's complicated. I need a Constitutional scholar (expert) to explain what it means.
        Words are hard.
        
        Restoras 13 years ago
        
        Halp mee jahn ize kant reed
    2. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
      
      "Why can't a state prohibit concealed carry?"
      
      Is a law that makes it illegal to "bear" arms in a manner that is convenient for a citizen, and less disruptive to the general welfare (if the armaphobes don't see it they are less likely to soil themselves) not an "infringement"?
    3. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
      
      "To say they do, means that the 2nd Amendment mandates conceal and carry."
      
      A small disagreement here (semantics): 2A does not mandate concealed carry, it specifically allows concealed carry.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        A small disagreement here (semantics): 2A does not allow concealed carry, it recognized the natural right to concealed carry and prohibits the government from infringing upon it.
        
        shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
        
        I stand corrected, logic nazi.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        Just doing my civic duty.
        This just in!
        I don't know who Maria Menounos is, but she's still hot!
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....tball.html
    4. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
      
      Your approach is sound John but the more salient point is I dont need a permit to exercise a right. I am of the opinion that concealed carry of a firearm is the same as cooking hot dogs I bought on a grill I own.
    5. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
      
      Well, there are a couple of cases pending on the issue. Comes down to can a state ban both methods - open and concealed- or do they have to allow at least one.
      
      Recipricocity issue is, at least to me, similar to driver's licenses. States have different standards for issuing and drifferent traffic laws. It's incumbent on the license holder to comply with the laws of the state they are in. Which means in TX you could defend your property with lethal force, cross into another state and you can't.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        I agree with you. I think it probably should be one or the other. But I don't see how a state can't say "you can carry a weapon but you must have a permit or you must carry it openly".
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
    6. Sean Caranna 13 years ago
      
      Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." This is why your driver's license works in all other US states.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        Yeah but states can not recognize things that are contrary to their public policy. They don't have to recognize everything.
2. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  How is that any different than free speech or the right to vote? I'm sure some asshole could argue that ignoring the Fourth or Fifth could also reduce crime. Not that gun control actually reduces crime, but that seems to be their main argument.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    Yeah but there are lots of restrictions on free speech. For example obscenity laws are different. Gun laws are going to be different.
    
    Suppose one state says that any felon cannot own a gun and another says only those convicted of a class of "violent felonies" can own a gun. Does a nonviolent felon from the first state have a right to take his gun to the second state? I am thinking probably not.
    
    Even if something is a right, the states do have a right to make reasonable laws regarding that right. And that is the question here, is not allowing conceal and carry a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment. If it is, then I don't see how states are required to recognize each other's conceal and carry permits.
    1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      "shall not be infringed"
    2. RoboCain 13 years ago
      
      No, there are not lots of variations on free speech.
      
      Regardless, someone from out of state can't even transport an unloaded gun in a locked metal container in NYC.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        See below. The transport laws are almost certainly unconstitutional. But that is a separate issue from the conceal and carry issue.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
3. Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
  
  You've made an assumption of facts not in evidence, namely that a state's laws are in accordance with 2A. In NYC, they are not, they are thus invalid.
4. jacob 13 years ago
  
  States arrange for reciprocity agreements on their own accord. It has nothing to do with federalism.
sarcasmic 13 years ago

Silly me, I thought the 2nd Amendment was a license to carry in all states.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  It should be, but as the law stands now it is not. Look, the people in Manhattan are idiotic superstitious morons. That is why I don't live there. But, they are morons who do have a right to run their city as they please within the Constitution. And it is hardly clear that the 2nd Amendment as applied to the states means shall issue conceal and carry.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    "shall not be infringed"
    
    So ambiguous you need a law degree to figure it out.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      So "keep and bear arms" means everyone, including those from out of state have a right to conceal and carry? Maybe. But it also could mean everyone has open carry privileges or ownership privileges. There is nothing about keep and bear that necessarily means conceal.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
        
        Restoras 13 years ago
        
        infringe [?n?fr?nd?]
        vb
        1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
        2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        That's complicated. I need a Constitutional scholar (expert) to explain what it means.
        Words are hard.
        
        Restoras 13 years ago
        
        Halp mee jahn ize kant reed
      2. RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        Except there is no open carry in NYC, and getting the permits just to keep on gun on your own property is next to impossible.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Then their laws are unconstitutional. But that is a separate question from the more general question of whether each state has to recognize other state's conceal and carry permit.
        
        RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        True, but the notion that a vetted law-abiding citizen will suddenly turn into a violent criminal just by crossing a state line seems idiotic.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Of course it is. And they should recognize other state's permits. But that doesn't mean they have to.
        
        Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
        
        Reciprocity of unlawful legislation that allows regulation isn't the issue. It is whether the City of New York can have the authority to make a law that contradicts the United States Constitution. And it cannot. It is unlawful to make such a law. Such a law is not valid.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        FS,
        
        You are just begging the quesiton. Sure, if the 2nd Amendment means states much issue conceal and carry permits, then yes they would have to recognize other states' permits. But it is hardly clear that the 2nd Amendment requires that. And if it doesn't, then they don't have to recognize other state's permits.
    2. styrgwillidar 13 years ago
      
      Well, SCOTUS (as well as the lower court) in Heller stated that "shall not be infringed" meant that the pre-existing right the colonists had already exercised as British citizens would not be infringed on by the new government. Much of the ruling/dicta are a discussion of what that pre-existing right was. A key point was the right had clearly been for individuals for self-defense and opposition to government tyranny. The lower court ruling upheld by SCOTUS:
      "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
      depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        But Heller concerned federal actions. The more appropriate case is McDonald that applied it to the States. Both cases say the government has a right to put reasonable restrictions. But they leave open the issue of what level of scrutiny those restrictions will be subjected to.
        
        And I am not sure I buy all of Reynolds' argument. Some laws would certainly burden interstate travel. Laws like New Jersey that require everyone who passes through the state to register certainly do that. But now allowing conceal and carry doesn't. You just carry you weapon openly or not directly on your person.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
        
        RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        Except you can't "carry your weapon openly or not directly on your person" without breaking the law in NY, NJ, MA, IL, CA, etc.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Again, maybe the "no open carry" laws are unconstitutional. But that says nothing about the no conceal and carry laws.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
  2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    Then again you're the guy who says the Constitution give the federal government the power to do anything it wants as long as it is not explicitly forbidden, and even then it's up to interpretation.
    
    IOW you're a statist, through and through.
  3. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
    
    "It should be, but as the law stands now it is not. Look, the people in Manhattan are idiotic superstitious morons. That is why I don't live there"
    
    No -- you live in the District of Columbia instead, a disgusting, apocalyptically authoritarian shithole in which monuments of Founders, war heroes, and grand statesmen of the (Star Wars fans will be smiling) old republic line the streets, fundamentally and completely dishonoring and disgracing them and their memories, every Star-Spangled Banner flown there, and the very core, the very principles, of the nation of which the District is supposed to be a capital.
    
    I like you, John, but you're so fucking full of horseshit sometimes.
    1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      I used to like him until he showed himself to be a statist shitbag who supports unlimited government as long as it suits him.
      
      Now I consider him to be nothing but a shitbag.
      
      Bag.
      
      O.
      
      Shit.
      
      Shitbag.
      1. Restoras 13 years ago
        
        Bag.
        
        O.
        
        Shit.
        
        Shitbag.
        
        Thank, sarcasmic, you just blew my whole afternoon. Those words are so hard I'll need to find a linguist to explain them to me. God knows how long that will take.
      2. John 13 years ago
        
        Oh you are just pissed I won't kiss Paul's ass.
      3. Nyed Stevens 13 years ago
        
        How incisive.
    2. John 13 years ago
      
      I don't live in DC. And I am sorry but it is not clear at all that the 2nd Amendment means automatic conceal and carry. I support conceal and carry. But that doesn't mean the Constitution demands it.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        So i guess that means you have a constitutional right to own a nuclear weapon. Shall not be infringed and that is an arm isn't it?
        
        Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
        
        No, an arm means a personal weapon, always did, and that's what it still means. Just as a mount means an animal you ride and not a motorcycle.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        non sequitur
        
        Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
        
        I have no problem with private ownership of nuclear devices
        
        Restoras 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
        
        Definition of INFRINGE
        transitive verb
        1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
        
        The instructions for making Jiffypop are more complicated than this.
  4. Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago
    
    You're making stuff up, John. Of course it does not mean that the states shall issue CCW. It means "shall not be infringed". Shall not. Be Infringed. Ie, do not touch this right, it is absolute.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      "Of course it does not mean that the states shall issue CCW"
      
      If I am in one state and have a CCW and can go to the next state and take that with me, that state effectively has CCW. So if you say that the other states have to recognize my carry and conceal permit, you are saying every state has to have carry and conceal.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
    2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      John is a closet statist.
RoboCain 13 years ago

"Under Mayor Bloomberg, New York's nothing like the Bible Belt, of course ? it's much less civilized and much more repressive.. And just like black people visiting the South in the 1930s, gun owners today need to realize that irrational prejudice and legal persecution are a risk when visiting these benighted places. This is why we need national civil rights laws to protect gun owners wherever they go. This is a topic I discuss in my Second Amendment Penumbras piece, forthcoming in the Southern California Law Review. I also note that a patchwork of confusing (often even to law enforcement) and overlapping laws regulating the exercise of a fundamental right is a burden on the constitutionally recognized right to interstate travel. At the very least, they should warn you when you're entering a repressive regime."

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/134365/
FatDaddy 13 years ago

We should all take our guns to NYC, shoot the place up, and leave.
RoboCain 13 years ago

"Holder said "too many guns have fallen into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to possess them," in explaining the increase."

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....70907.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c.....more-90617
1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  Just a fast and furious observation here: Holder seems to be THE EXPERT about guns falling into the wrong hands, and at justifying strict "gun laws" so that guns fall only into the states' hands.
Fascist-Slayer 13 years ago

Given that the RKBA is enshrined by the Bill of Rights, then states have no authority to infringe that right. If the state governments argue, as they do, that some amendments in BOR are incorporated to the states, then they all are. You can't pick and choose for arbitrary reasons - that's not rational or logically consistent as an argument.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  That is exactly what they do. And the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply the entire BOR to the states. Just "due process" whatever that means.
R C Dean 13 years ago

And the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply the entire BOR to the states.

Have to disagree. I think that is exactly what the Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to do.

Here's how this ought to work:

Every person in the US has the right to carry a gun, concealed, unconcealed, whatever, in every state, unless and until that right is limited as part of a sentence for a felony conviction.

I think that pretty much does away with problems around reciprocity, etc., as well.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  That is a great law RC. But how do you plan to implement it? Where do the Feds get the power to say such a thing? Last I looked "regulating arms" was not a power of the federal government.
  
  Do you plan to do it by court fiat? If so, please explain to me where the second Amendment says any such thing. Are we talking penumbras now? What is so magical about a "felony"? Why not a "violent felony"?
  
  I agree with your idea. But I don't see how it is legally required beyond "God damn it we want it that way".
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    "shall not be infringed"
    1. Stupid Troll 13 years ago
      
      You Paultards are stealing my gig.
  2. R C Dean 13 years ago
    
    Do you plan to do it by court fiat?
    
    If by Court fiat, you mean "enforcement of the Bill of Rights", then I suppose so.
    
    If so, please explain to me where the second Amendment says any such thing.
    
    Basically, I'm applying the same standard to the RKBA that is applied to voting. I think "shall not be infringed" means, at a minimum "cannot be denied without due process of law," which is to say, a criminal conviction.
    
    But I don't see how it is legally required beyond "God damn it we want it that way".
    
    So, you don't think there is any Constitutional protection for the right to vote, such that it can't be stripped from a citizen without a criminal conviction, beyond "God damn it we want it that way"?
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      "I think "shall not be infringed" means, at a minimum "cannot be denied without due process of law," which is to say, a criminal conviction."
      
      What kind of criminal conviction? And how does saying "you can have any weapon you like, take it anywhere you want, but you just have to carry it openly" infringe upon your rights?
      
      I agree that a state is probably required by the 2nd Amendment to have either legal open or legal concealed carry. But I don't see how they have to have both.
      
      Sure treat it like voting. You can still lose your franchise. You still have to have an id and register to vote. You still have to vote at the precinct they tell you.
      
      Given that, why can't a state say, you can carry a gun but you carry under these terms after you tell us you are doing it?
2. John 13 years ago
  
  maybe you could say the feds have the power by the commerce clause. But is carrying my own weapon across state lines for no commercial purpose really "commerce"?
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    "shall not be infringed"
Ed Leary 13 years ago

False argument re: gay marriage. Liberals like to point to states rights in their fight against DOMA, but the shrink away from a right that is constitutionally protected as 2A is.

This isn't just hypocrisy, it's downright dishonesty and is part of THE AGENDA.
shamalamadingdong 13 years ago

"That is a great law RC. But how do you plan to implement it? Where do the Feds get the power to say such a thing? Last I looked "regulating arms" was not a power of the federal government."

That is exactly what 2A says: RKBA shall not be infringed. The 14th incorporates the BOR against the states. One of the prime motivations of the 14th was to garantee 2A, specifically for freed blacks but only because it was "beyond question" that whites had the RKBA.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  Ok. I guess Congress could pass a law that said in order to guarantee everyone's federal rights to keep and bear arms, every person in the US has the right to carry a gun, concealed, unconcealed, whatever, in every state, unless and until that right is limited as part of a sentence for a felony conviction.
  
  And Congress would then tell the Supreme Court "this is how we interpret the 2nd Amendment get the fuck over it." That would be valid I think.
  1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
    
    "I guess Congress could pass a law that said in order to guarantee everyone's federal rights to keep and bear arms, every person in the US has the right to carry a gun, concealed, unconcealed, whatever, in every state,..."
    
    Congress already did say that via the 14th, although there was no language about limiting the right garanteed by 2A for felony convictions. If the 14th "incorporates" the BOR against the states, then the states MUST abide by 2A, hence any state law that "infringes" the RKBA is invalid and not a law at all. At least, that is the way I see it.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      I see it the same way. But the question is does not allowing conceal and carry infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. I am not sure it does. If you allow transport and open carry, why do you have to allow conceal?
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        "shall not be infringed"
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Every state in the union is violating the constitution right now because every one of them requires a safety class before getting a permit.
        
        I am so glad you are around to enlighten us. What would we do without you.
        
        R C Dean 13 years ago
        
        Every state in the union is violating the constitution right now
        
        In a lot of ways, every day.
        
        Kinda like before the civil rights cases, you know?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        But even the Supreme Court admits that some gun laws are constitutional. Running around screaming "shall not be infringed" is just question beggery and douchbagery.
      2. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
        
        "If you allow transport and open carry, why do you have to allow conceal?"
        
        In most states that issue concealed carry permits, it is a crime to expose your legally concealed weapon (brandishment). The various state gun laws are a crazy patchwork where the only thing most of us can count on is that we are breaking the "law", no matter what we do. It should not be that way, 2A is clear.
        
        I see your point, though. I am playing devil's advocate here. Maybe a good counter argument to this specific case is that NY is in clear violation of 2A since they don't allow ANY mechanism to RKBA, hence their existing gun "law" is invalid.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        The NY laws are totally invalid.
        
        Yesterday's John 13 years ago
        
        If the courts say the laws are vaild, then they are vaild.
  2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    "shall not be infringed"
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      I really didn't know you were retarded and incapable of understanding a debate. Does supporting Paul make you stupid?
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        Does being a conservative make you so stupid that you can't understand what "shall not be infringed" means?
        
        TrickyVic 13 years ago
        
        To be fair, liberals, and many judges don't know what that means either.
Sparky 13 years ago

Here's an update from Fox. Looks like they're going to try to avoid looking like complete assholes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....latestnews
1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  Prostrating yourself before the mercy of tyrants is not at all preferable to the BOR.
2. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
  
  And not succeeding very well:
  
  ""By prosecuting this woman and seeking 3 1/2 years of jail, we are shooting our own [gun-control] efforts in the foot and giving the rest of the country ammunition," Vallone said."
  
  At least he uses gun metaphors and acknowledges that it's his state vs. the rest of the country.
Sean 13 years ago

Reciprocity is a red herring. If the Second Amendment is incorporated through the 14th so that it applies to states, as the last 2 Supreme Court decisions have made plain, then many of New York's restrictive laws are unconstitutional. Last time I checked, "bear" meant "carry." I'll only add that this woman is profoundly stupid if she didn't realize that New York is a Nazi police state when it comes to guns.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  But carry could mean "carry openly". I think a state has to allow either conceal and carry or open carry. But I don't see how it has to do both.
  
  But more importantly, even if it does mean conceal and carry, what about the standards for permits from one state to the next? If one state says you have to be 21 to get a permit, is an 18 year old's permit from the state over valid? What if one state bars felons and the other does not? Does each state have to recognize those standards?
  
  So I think reciprocity is an issue no matter what.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    Is prohibiting concealed carry not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?
    
    "shall not be infringed"
    
    Words. How do they work?
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      How do they work you fucking moron. Any law at all relating weapons is an infringement. Yet, lots of those laws are constitutional. Which ones are or are not is the whole issue.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        in?fringe/in?frinj/
        Verb:
        
        Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
        Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
        
        Seems pretty clear to me.
        
        What about it do you not understand?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        It is only clear because you are a half wit. By your definition, felons, the mentally ill, children, anyone could buy any personal arm at any time with no control or regulation by the state. And that is not what it means. It is not what it meant at the time, there were gun laws in the colonies. And it is not what it means now.
        
        While you are using your little dictionary, look up context you fucking clown.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        You sure have gotten pissy since I pointed out that you are a statist.
        
        I think I will do that more often.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I am not pissy at all. Words have different meanings in different context. Read Heller for God's sake. They talk about all of the different gun laws in the colonies at the time of passage. By your pinhead definition, all those laws were unconstitutional. But they clearly were not.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        You're cute when you're pissy 😉
      2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        Do you need me to scrounge up definitions for "Act", "so", "as", "to", "limit", "or", "undermine", "something", "encroach", and "on", and then every word in those definitions, and so on and so forth?
        
        That could take all day.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Words have more than one meaning and context determines meaning. You are just being a dick and disrupting the conversation because you are mad I had the nerve not to think the total best of Ron Paul. Get over it.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        You're just pissy because "infringe" has a clear meaning, and you don't like the implications.
        Pissy John.
        John Pissy.
        Pissy.
        P
        I
        S
        S
        Y
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        No it doesn't. If it did, all of the gun laws at the time of passage would have been unconstitutional.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        At the time of passage the 2A didn't apply to the states. Only after the 14th did it apply to the states. The 14th being passed in response to the Southern states disarming freed slaves, depriving them of any defense from whites.
        
        The simple fact here is that you are a statist who wants unlimited government power, as long as it suits you.
        
        No principles. Only principals.
        
        You're no different than Tony.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        But the nature of those laws is what defined the "right" as they understood it at the time. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the Amendment was intended to prohibit all regulations of guns. No one believes that. You just yell statist because you have nothing else to say.
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        I yell statist because you made it clear that the Constitution gives the federal government unlimited power until it is checked by an Amendment, and even that is up for interpretation.
        
        You said it yourself.
        
        That makes you a statist.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I never said the federal government has infinite power. I said they can spend money as they please. Saying the federal government can tax and then spend that money however it sees fit as long as it doesn't violate the BOR is not saying it has infinite power. It certainly doesn't have general police power. It can't pass ex post facto laws. It can't regulate inner state commerce.
        
        You don't agree with my position. Good for you. But at least try to understand the position before screaming about it, ok?
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        The BOR doesn't say anything about general police power.
        What if the feds decided to tax and then spend that money on general policing?
        Why not spend on regulating inner state commerce? Nothing about that in the BOR.
        
        Your position is inconsistent at best.
        
        Face it. You just want the government to be able to do what you want it to do, whether it's in the in the Constitution or not.
        
        No principles.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        There is nothing in consistent at all about my position. It is based on the simple proposition that spending money is not the same as regulating.
        
        If you would ever bother to listen to what I am saying instead of just accusing me of bad faith, you might understand that.
P Brooks 13 years ago

the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply the entire BOR to the states.

WHAT

THE

FUCK?

OVER.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  It is called selective incorporation. No court, not even the ones that were around in the days when the Amendment was written has ever incorporated the entire BOR into the Amendment. Things like the right to a grand jury have never been applied to the states.
2. Kitty 13 years ago
  
  I agree in fact the only reason the 2nd amendment was not incorporated immediately was due to racism.....for those of you who have not done so already please read Clarence Thomas' opinion in the McDonald decision. You will be truly saddened to learn the history that really underlies all of our gun control laws.
  
  If anything the 2nd amendment should be protected by the privileges and immunity clause not due process. How have we allowed ourselves to think that the one right that the founders specifically said shall not be infringed can subjected to due process? This make absolutely no sense. Without your right to bear arms the rest of bill of rights has no teeth.
Kitty 13 years ago

No this is not just case of respecting local differences.This is case of the more liberal states in the country attempting to usurp the constitution and infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. The states are free to regulate gun use but not gun possession. We are talking about right here. WE have plenty of laws governing where and how guns can be used that are covered legally under the tenth amendment gun possession it not mone of these. Can ypou imagine if your right to practice your religion was not consistent across state lines or your right to free speech? I am certain if the NYC tried to say you need a permit to practice your religion in the city people would be pretty upset. Just because guns may not be important to everyone just as some people do not care to about religion and are thus entitled to be atheists, my rights to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon your opinion it.
1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
  
  We need state laws to trump federal laws. We need state constitutions to trump federal constitution.
  
  At this point, if my state wants to outlaw religion, legalize drugs, and make gun possession a serious offense, so be it. If I don't like it, i can find another state.
  
  We need a divorce. That is, let the states do what they want. If Alabama and Arizona wants to run out all the Latinos, then the LATINOS should read the handwriting on the wall (if not hear the announcement over the PA) and leave the state. If California wants to legalize weed, let them legalize it. If we in NY don't want people walking around with GUNS, then don't come to NY State with your gun.
  1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
    
    "We need state laws to trump federal laws. We need state constitutions to trump federal constitution."
    
    And they do, in all cases that are in accordance with the US constitution.
Ed Donegan 13 years ago

The Second Amendment appears in a list drawn up to check Government power. I think one possible interpretation is a well armed citizenry is a check on the potential dictatorial drift of government, the militia being to defend against Government. Wherever the Government is, a common law like gun permit ought to apply, so long as the carrier follows the laws the visited state. If the Feds have some issue with the issuing authority (States) let them take it up with the states possibly. We recognize state authority to issue DLs and those to be accepted by other states.
Alice Bowie 13 years ago

I'm for STATES RIGHTS. I live in NY State and I'm fine with the our GUN LAWS. I am also fine that everyone in the south is allowed to run around with guns. I stay away from the south. That's a personal choice. We don't want people from the south coming up here with their guns unless they're federal law enforcement agents or have federal authority to carry.

And, if in NEW YORK, we restrict gun possession, then what is the problem?
1. John 13 years ago
  
  Tough shit. If you can't travel with your gun, the gun ownership is clearly not a federal right. And gun ownership is clearly a federal right,
  
  And spare me your commitment to states rights. If the southern states decided they didn't want Yankees coming down there doing abortions, you would not see it that way. If something is a federal constitutional right in one state, it is a federal constitutional right in all states.
  1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
    
    Gun ownership is clearly not a federal right. I know your interpretation says so. But years and years of supreme court appeals have consistently upheld the aggressive gun laws we have in the north.
    
    And I'm not going to the SOUTH to get an abortion. I support their opinion on not wanting abortions in their state and welcome any woman to come to the NORTH to get her abortion. I would even contribute to any charity that would fly poor women up for abortions.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      It is a total federal right. It was meant to be from the day it began. It only wasn't in a short period of time in the 20th century when the issue wasn't really considered.
      
      Face it. The war is over. The bums lost. Gun control has been a disaster and a failure everywhere it has been tried. The only thing it ever succeed at was disarming law abiding citizens and keeping black people living under Jim Crow for 80 years. It never prevented crime or did anything it was advertised to do.
      1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
        
        "The bums lost"
        
        I just watch the Big Lebowski. I think that's were the quote comes from.
        
        Gun control has been fine in NYC. Especially in the hood. Trust me, I'm from there and we in NY City enjoy a lower crime rate.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        They enjoy a lower crime rate. But how much of that is due to big time policing? NYC had restrictive gun laws in the 1980s and a horrific crime rate.
        
        Alice Bowie 13 years ago
        
        Was your "The bums lost" from the Big Lebowski?
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        Was your "The bums lost" from the Big Lebowski?
        
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Was+your+"The+bums+lost"+from+the+Big+Lebowski?
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        non-SF'd link
        
        sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        fuck nevermind
        
        R C Dean 13 years ago
        
        Gun control has been fine in NYC. Especially in the hood. Trust me, I'm from there and we in NY City enjoy a lower crime rate.
        
        Lower than what?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Lower than a lot. In Alice's defense, NYC is one of the safest big cities in the world. But I don't think their gun laws have much do with that since they had the same gun laws back in the 80s when the crime was sky high.
        
        TrickyVic 13 years ago
        
        ""NYC is one of the safest big cities in the world. ""
        
        True, but it wasn't as safe 20 years ago. It became safer when Mayor Rudy started cracking down. One of Rudy's big crack downs, illegal guns.
        
        Mayor Mike hasn't cracked down as hard as Mayor Rudy and gun violence has risen, so Mayor Mike is trying to do something about it.
        
        Not that I agree with NYC gun laws. But Rudy's crackdown on illegal guns was a big part of him making the city safer.
    2. Kitty 13 years ago
      
      You obviously no nothing about the supreme law of this land. The second was incorporated under the 14th amendment by the federal government and this "fact" was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the McDonald decision.
      
      I have not seen any mention of abortion in the bill of rights. In fact, the Roe v. Wade decision is among the most nefarious usurpations of the constitution ever perpetrated. Unlike the second amendment the right to an abortion is a states right issue and this is why Roe v Wade should be overturned.
      1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
        
        That's why i think we need a divorce.
    3. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
      
      "Gun ownership is clearly not a federal right."
      
      The McDonald decision states otherwise.
2. Kitty 13 years ago
  
  I am for states rights too so in that case I think that Georgia etc. should be allowed to prevent those who practice undesirable religions from doing so. Or those who might voice undesirable opinions form voicing them in public without a state permit. Can you understand the slippery slope you logic opens the nation up to now Sorry dear this time you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are that scared of guns you should learn to use yourself just as people who are afraid of those who practice different religions should learn more about them.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    He is just trolling. He is just pissed there is a BOR that contradicts his superstitions about guns.
    1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
      
      I'm one of site trolls, but not on this case. We are fine with our gun laws.
3. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  "... or have federal authority to carry."
  
  They do have federal authority to carry, it is spelled out in 2A.
  1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
    
    It is not that clear. Or Northern gun laws would have been deemed unconstitutional.
    1. Kitty 13 years ago
      
      Your northern gun laws are being contested now thanks to McDonald decision. It is only a matter of time before these racial biased laws are all done away with and poor people and people of different races can once again defend their homes effectively without government permission.
      1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
        
        Poor people here don't need to have guns to protect themselves. We have low crime rates. See for yourself.
    2. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
      
      It is only "unclear" to those who wish it weren't so.
      1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
        
        +100
  2. Kitty 13 years ago
    
    IMHO open carry will ultimately prove to be federally protected under the bill of rights. Concealed carry on the other hand may not however hold muster under the constitution as this form of carry which is a use issue that prevents other people from knowing you are armed and may in turn cause them not to modify their behavior to reduce the risk of a confrontation with you. Open carry has never been widely restricted in this country for this very reason. Only crooks and cops carried concealed prior to 1968 and ironically we had less crime too. Open carry has an amazingly good effect on public behavior and criminal behavior. Criminals simply do not want to get shot and when they see armed people around they will go elsewhere. While concealed carry provides the element of surprise most people have no reason to carry this way.
    1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
      
      I don't know where your from. But in NYC, the criminals tend to handle people that they know are armed rather differently...They shoot them 1st.
      1. Kitty 13 years ago
        
        That is simply not true. There is no statistical data supporting your statement.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        exactly true.
        
        criminals tend to avoid if at all possible armed average joes.
        
        most criminal (burglars, car thieves etc.) try not to be confronted at all, and certainly not by armed people.
        
        burglary around here (where many people are armed) take substantial steps to try to ensure a house is vacant before burglarizing (they knock on the doors using a ruse they are lost, etc.)
        
        i've interrogated scores of burglars, thieves, etc.
        
        it's a universal
        
        when i worked in hawaii, a state where almost nobody is armed, burglaries of occupied tourist rentals were not at all uncommon. because they knew unless the tourist was a vacationing fed, they wouldn't get shot
        
        in my state, the burden is on the state to DISPROVE self defense. people who shoot criminals are very highly protected. criminals know this.
        
        the only times criminals attempt to make contact with armed "victims" is gang banger related shit (where of course they are all armed) or home invasions of drug dealers, and shit like that.
        
        criminals are not like repo men. they want to avoid tense situations.
        
        if you doubt this, please show me an example of a person robbing a person who was carrying a firearm openly.
        
        why would a criminal risk a life in prison or death penalty for having to shoot a person and./or getting shot themselves when they can pick an easier mark?
        
        they don't
        
        they aren't usually rocket scientists, but they have some sense of self preservation
    2. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
      
      But I'm willing to meet you 1/2 the way. I'll consider having strict laws on carrying concealed weapons and let everyone walk around with holsters...never thought about it.
      1. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        why should there be strict laws on carrying concealed (assuming not a felon, etc.) when as the evidence irrefutably shows - people who legally carry concealed are amongst the most law abiding demographics in this country.
        
        that's an irrefutable fact.
        
        the stats have been posted over and over.
        
        look at my state. WA. shall issue concealed carry, and no permit required for open carry. do you "feel" unsafe walking around seattle because of CCW'ers with their weapons?
        
        if you do, that's an irrational fear.
        
        constitutional issues, aside, it simply makes no sense to outlaw carryign concealed
        
        furthermore, in the last few decades while shall issue concealed carry states have vastly expanded, and the # of people CCW'ing has exploded, crime and violent crime have dropped tremendously.
        
        what rational basis do you have?
    3. sarcasmic 13 years ago
      
      Laws against concealed carry date back to when dueling was still legal, and open carry was considered to be "sporting" while concealed was not.
4. Britt 13 years ago
  
  Except your fuckhead mayor comes down to my beloved commonwealth and tries to run investigations on lawful businessmen because somehow, despite all of his soothsaying and incantations, people are still getting guns into his fiefdom.
  
  I'd be fine if you bootlicking pussies would stay on your precious little island and ban guns there. But thats not it. You send cops to my state, threaten my people with jail time for conducting honest business.
  
  Fuck your worthless state, and may God please drop the frozen contents of an airline toilet tank on Mikey Bloombergs worthless head.
  1. Nyed Stevens 13 years ago
    
    Your invective is evidence of your boorishness, not any analytical ability.
Alice Bowie 13 years ago

I love how people equate gun control to racial equality.

Charlton Heston interviewed in Bowling for Columbine showed that his big justification was to protect himself and other white people from minorities.
1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  Have you read the public debate that occured prior to the passage of the 14th? One of the main motivations for passage of the 14th was to ensure that freed slaves were allowed to "keep and bear". 2A is one of the fundamental rights of citizens; it is meant as a check against governmental tyranny.
  1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
    
    No. Alice has not and will not. That would involve "learning" which is something Alice does not do.
2. R C Dean 13 years ago
  
  Got a transcript from that Bowling for Columbine interview, Alice?
  1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50
    
    In this video, Ben Hur talks about it. I don't have a written transcript, just a snippet of the actual movie.
    1. RoboCain 13 years ago
      
      No, that video does not show that "his big justification was to protect himself and other white people from minorities". He never says anything vaguely like that.
      1. Britt 13 years ago
        
        She believes it, that's all that matters.
        
        Although, from a certain point of view, shes right. Violent criminals are probably like .25 of a percent of the population? So they're kind of a minority by definition.
        
        Just like Alice is one stupid bitch. By definition.
3. John 13 years ago
  
  So what if he did say that? Disarming blacks and minorities is still a bad idea. And what do you care if some white dude who doesn't live in your neighborhood has a gun?
Sandy 13 years ago

She should have known better than to talk to a cop without talking to a lawyer before, during, and after said encounter.

Try to abide by the law and be respectful to the police and you get thrown in jail and made an example of.

If she had just kept her arms to herself and not spoken up nothing would've happened at all.
1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
  
  I personally think this woman acted in good faith. The officer should have confiscated the gun until she was ready to leave the state. I don't think she should be charged the felony. If she is, I'll write to Obama and Cuomo and ask for a pardon...seriously.
  
  And I still support NY State Gun Laws.
  1. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    i don't see how ANYBODY can support NY state gun laws, but that aside, the law does not offer a good faith exception.
    
    the " i forgot it was illegal to carry a concealed pistol in NY without a permit " defense is not an actual defense.
    
    again, we SHOULD have nationwide CCW reciprocity, but then EVERY state SHOULD be "shall issue" imo
    
    however, there is our opinion about what the law SHOULD be, and what the law actually is.
    
    the prosecution need not prove she had bad faith in carrying concealed. she was clearly knowingly carrying (iow somebody didn't stick it on her person w/out her knowledge), and that's all that's required to meet the elements of the statute
    
    however, i agree that prosecutorial discretion should be such that they give her a sweet plea deal like probation or something.
    
    and of course IF it goes to trial, it cries out for jury nullification
2. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  Lesson learned: FUCK THA POLICE
  1. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    lesson learned: don't walk up to the police and admit you are committing a felony, unless you want to get arrested for same.
    
    duh.
    
    i think it's highly likely this case will get dropped or she will get some kind of probation agreement as so often happens in high profile cases like this ONCE the media hysteria settles down
    1. dunphy 13 years ago
      
      i also find it interesting that yet again, the ignorati (sarcasmic being a great example) blame the police for enforcing a stupid law vs. the legislators that passed the law and/or the people of NY who continue to elect legislators who refuse to repeal it).
      
      cops are executive branch. they are not responsible for this stupid law.
      1. R 13 years ago
        
        Cops could refuse to enforce stupid laws. That's part of the executive branch's check on the legislature: if the lawmakers can't find anyone to enforce it, they're shit out of luck.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        jeez, not this shit again.
    2. TrickyVic 13 years ago
      
      Mandatory 3 1/2 years.
      
      It was raised since Plaxico was tried, IIRC.
      
      Not that authority doesn't change it's mind when it wants to.
3. dunphy 13 years ago
  
  rubbish... she walked up to a cop and admitted a crime.
  
  there is a big difference between "don't talk to the police" and "don't walk up to the cop and admit to a crime in progress"
  
  there are metric assloads of people talking to the police HELPING their case.
  
  but yes, if you are committing a felony, it is unwise (if you value your liberty) to walk up to a cop and admit you are in the process of committing it
  
  this in no way endorses NY state's stupid anti-RKBA laws.
  1. Sandy 13 years ago
    
    She was inquiring because she didn't want to commit a crime. It's not like she was carrying a full auto AK-47 filled with cop killer bullets in a 30 round assault clip that she bought from a mexican cartel with funds that went to al-qaeda. She was carrying a handgun she legally owns and has a carry permit to, and despite that, she STILL wanted to turn it in specifically so she DIDN'T break the law.
    
    You make it sound like she walked up to the police and said "Hey, I'm committing a felony! Try to catch me!"
    1. dunphy 13 years ago
      
      the practical effect of what she did WAS to walk up to police and say "hi, i am currently committing a felony in your presence"
      
      again, i don't agree with NY's ridiculous statist gun regs, but they are what they are.
Kitty 13 years ago

You think it is not about racism then you really need read Clarence Thomas opinion in McDonald. How anyone can say something so naive while offering up such a controversial opinion as yours is truly an outrage.
1. shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
  
  +100
Alice Bowie 13 years ago

You know, guns don't kill people, cops kill people.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  Sure they do. And if you wanted to disarm the cops, I doubt you would get much argument around here. Why someone who claims to live in a bad neighborhood would want the government to take away their ability to defend themselves is beyond me. If some guy breaks into your house some day Alice and beats the fuck out of you with a ball bat and you can do nothing to stop him, you should write a thank you letter to Nanny Bloomburg for giving you exactly what you want.
  1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
    
    Like i mentioned earlier John, I was raised in the hood. Many drug dealers, car jackers, crooks, robbers, pimps, numbers-runners, etc.
    
    These criminals were the PRIMARY TARGET of other criminals that robbed drug dealers and other individuals that would have a large portion of cash on them. These criminals were well versed in robbing other armed criminals. Usually, If they know you're packing, they shoot you.
    
    The fact of the matter is, in my hood, not too many people can claim that their gun came in handy for SELF DEFENSE. Almost everyone I knew with a gun used it to commit a crime or to have it handy in case another criminal came to rob you. The people I know that were killed in the drug thing were armed.
    
    What you are bringing up in an Anecdote. Burglars tend to CASE your home and wait for no one to be home.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      If those people with guns had to worry about their victims having guns, such crimes would be less appealing.
      
      And I have lived in neighborhoods were everyone was armed. And there was little or no crime. That is because crime and victimizing people was a contact sport.
      
      And yes burglers try to avoid my being home. But they are not always successful. Further, I want them to come when I am home so I can shoot them and keep them from stealing my stuff. If you break into my house, your forfeit your right to live as far as I am concerned.
      
      In states where people own guns and have the right to shoot intruders, burglary rates and crime rates are lower. You don't do anyone any favors by surrendering yourself to such people.
      1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
        
        My experience, in the hood, is that the gun won't protect you. But that's my experience in a NYC ghetto and my be different in Texas.
        
        By the way, I don't see a clear correlation to prove the crime rates are lower:
        
        http://os.cqpress.com/citycrim.....htolow.pdf
        
        NYC, with tough GUN LAWS and a KEY Player in the NARCOTICS business in America, ranks 269 out of 400.
        
        And even though the top 20 is littered with a bunch of states that allow gun possession, I'm not ready to say that NYC prohibit lowers crime. I say the correlation is there.
        
        shamalamadingdong 13 years ago
        
        McDonald, in Chicago, is also from the hood. He seemed to want to exercise his RKBA.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        regardless of whether the INTENT of those who currently support anti-RKBA laws is in fact racist, the EFFECT clearly is
        
        1) fact: african americans, specifically african american males are far far far far more likely to be victims of homicidal violence than whites or asians
        
        2) fact: african americans also disproportionately tend to reside in locations that have strict anti-RKBA laws e.g. Washington DC (about 70% black iirc), Baltimore, Chicago, etc., as opposed to places like new hampshire, vermont, etc.
Gabriel 13 years ago

The amendments we have, as Americans, are not over specific states but over all of the United states. It is a constitutional right to bear arms, for all United States citizens. Why should one person not have his or her rights just because they live in a certain state? When traveling, an American should not have to worry about what state will take their rights away while traveling through that state.
1. dunphy 13 years ago
  
  of course. if the 2nd amendment was interpreted CORRECTLY, the right to carry on one's person would be protected in every state.
  
  sadly, it isn't. but it's getting better
protefeed 13 years ago

what about the case for reciprocity in gun laws?

There is no case for reciprocity in gun laws, since all such laws violate the 2nd Amendment. The case is for striking down those laws in all states.

That being said, requiring states that severely infringe on 2nd amendment rights to honor the gun laws in states that only somewhat infringe on those rights would move some states closer to actual compliance with the 2nd.
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  There is no case for reciprocity in gun laws, since all such laws violate the 2nd Amendment.
  
  Just like laws against death threats and perjury violate the 1st amendment, I suppose.
protefeed 13 years ago

If every place in America is forced to be just like every other place when it comes all laws and regulation and taxes and collective bargaining and trans fat and this and that (including gay marriage, come to think of it), isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? Or should the standard for gun rights and many other things (free speech, religious liberty, not having to quarter soldiers, etc.) ultimately be set at the highest level possible? What do you think is the way to decide which rights get special protection and which ones don't?

You're conflating positive rights with negative rights.

The argument should be centered instead upon whether a law complies with one of the few enumerated powers granted governments.

States can't impose restrictions on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. And, I would argue that the current collective bargaining and trans fat laws and a bunch of other nanny state laws violate the Bill of Rights, namely the 10th amendment.
1. Alice Bowie 13 years ago
  
  I would think Libertarians and Conservatives would be for Gun Laws.
  
  Hate to break it to you guys, but if a fiscal conservative comes in and raises the taxes on the poor, eliminates all public safety nets, eliminates the minimum wage, eliminates the mortgage tax deduction, and continues to outsource jobs, YOU PEOPLE will be the FIRST that'll want GUN CONTROL.
  1. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    (true) conservatives and libertarians aren't afraid of THE PEOPLE. we respect the right of self-defense, and recognize that that right is practically meaningless without the right to carry arms.
    
    the govt is of , by, and for the people. they are not the enemy to fear and be controlled.
    
    it's no coincidence that statists fear an armed populace.
    
    we don't. we know it is essential to true liberty.
    1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      It's up to people NOT to riot, Alice.
      
      Self-control. How the fuck does it work?
Hacha Cha 13 years ago

The 2nd amendment applies to all states through the 14th amendment, plus most states have their own version of the 2nd amendment in their state constitution. So I believe that the 2nd amendment must always be respected.
Nyed Stevens 13 years ago

Declaring that all jurisdictions should have the same standards is a formula for increasing federal power. I live in DC and don't want my fellow citizens to be armed. We have voted that way. So why botherif all you need to do is get a permit in Tennessee to arm yourself in the parking lots and risk being shot for a bump?
Scott 13 years ago

If she was a black male in the same situation. This wouldn t even be a news story.
Scott 13 years ago

I want to see if Bloomberg will throw her in jail.

If they change the law, is it because she is a white woman?

If they review the law, is it because she is a white woman?

Let s see just how colorblind society is. Right now NY has egg on their face.

Gun laws are racist in the first place. This is why your major urban cities with heavy black populations usually have stricter carry laws.

Hello Chicago and NYC (not NY state, I wonder why?)
SilentRat 13 years ago

It actually seems to me as though this may have discussed before, perhaps in the late 1700's. From what I remember there was a conference of sorts and some older gentlemen came to an agreement, I do believe it was published somewhere or the other.
Bob Honiker 13 years ago

The Constitution should prevail everywhere in the Nation. The anti gun laws in NYC and many other places are violations of our rights and unconstitutional.
Bill 13 years ago

This case seems like Dred Scott, a slave petitioning for freedom while in a free state. Not only did he loose the little freedoms he had, the ruling was used against all slaves.
Andy 13 years ago

If this happened in Chicago the worst that would happen, is her gun being confiscated and a misdemeanor. How about TN starts not recognizing NY licenses to drive and plates?
BHirsh 13 years ago

" Assuming New York's and the city's laws pass constitutional muster..."

That's a pretty tall assumption. Inalienable civil rights are just that - inalienable. New York's discretionary system is in clear violation of the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause as it relates to the 2nd Amendment since its incorporation. Settling that issue is only a matter of time. As to whether "trans fat" reciprocity is an issue, pu-LEEZE. We are talking about a fundamental constitutionally-guaranteed right here. Article IV Section 1 enumerates Congressional authority to mandate "Full Faith and Credit", but exercise of that power is deliberately left to the political sense of the Congress, and such power is only invoked on a case-by-case basis by proactive legislation particular to the issue at hand.

IOW, your "trans fat" analogy is a non sequitur.

To be clear, given the guarantees of the 2nd and 14th Amendments, any action under Article IV should be unnecessary. However, it is precisely the political aspect of local and regional infringement of the right that drives the mandate for this bill. It should be passed, and the sooner the better. Once that happens, any convictions pursuant to licensees from another state should be revisited, and retroactively vacated.
gwbnyc 13 years ago

"illegal guns"

-no, **illegal possession**; you do the work of antigunners using that nomenclature.
truenyc 13 years ago

Please get the facts of your post straight:

#1The Post quotes her mother making the case that gun rights should not be subject to state infringements:

---It was her MOTHER-IN-LAW from NJ! It even says so in the text you quoted.---

"You'd think states would reciprocate with the Second Amendment. She has a license to carry in Tennessee," said her mother-in-law, who lives in Manchester, NJ.

---AND AGIAN... Her Mother-in-law from NJ---

Not a "...Volunteer State voice whose opinion of New York probably couldn't have gotten any lower anyhow:"

It's even apparent is the "down there..." that it's not a southern speaking:

"Everyone down there carries, and she just forgot," said the woman, who would not give her name. "She was being honest, and this is the treatment they give innocent people."

Just a person who like the facts, especially over the spreading of stereotypes.

Nick are you a little anti-southern? I hope not, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

For the record I'm for the girl, she seems like she was trying to do the most correct thing she could possibly do in her situation. If I had found myself in her shoes I think I would have just left town asap, what she did shows amazing honesty! For the record I don't own a gun and don't plan to, but I'm also not for us waisting tax money and efforts on ridiculous things like this.
matt 13 years ago

I have huge respect for states rights, (as does the constitution). However, this law is not constitutional to start with. The constitution holds the states responsible as well, not just the federal government.
PavePusher 13 years ago

Why do all my Constitutional Rights follow me across state lines... but not the Second Amendment?
Prowine 13 years ago

Just recieved my GA C.C.P. but guess I won't be rushing to NY where apparently only criminals and the police are allowed... It's disappointing that with all the other issues NYC faces, the Mayor & DA's office choose to be focused on this. Sad but soo predictable.
renewable term life insurance 13 years ago

renewable term life insurance
The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lot of great information which can be helpful in some or the other way. Keep updating the blog, looking forward for more contents...Great job, keep it up..

Please log in to post comments

Should Gun Rights be Reciprocal Among States? Tenn. Women Arrested in NYC for Carrying Legal Gun at 9/11 Memorial

Latest

Should the Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Judge Orders Tufts Grad Student Rumeysa Ozturk Be Released on Bail From Immigration Detention

Recommended

Login Form