Obviously this team is better with Plaxico with his head screwed on straight. That being said ... well, it just doesn't look like that will ever happen again. The silver lining for the Giants is there is probably at least one contract violation in there somewhere.
The point was made on Mike & Mike this morning that the hammer HAS to fall on Plax for this. Those who see this as some moron shooting himself with a loaded gun are right, but they're not looking at the bigger picture. If he's reckless enough to brandish a loaded gun and shoot himself in the thigh, he could have also been reckless enough to brandish a loaded gun and accidentally shoot (or maybe even kill) SOMEONE ELSE who happened to be nearby. This story could have been a lot more tragic than it was and now's as good a time as any for Roger Goodell to make an example out of this idiot.
Originally posted by It's FalseThe point was made on Mike & Mike this morning that the hammer HAS to fall on Plax for this. Those who see this as some moron shooting himself with a loaded gun are right, but they're not looking at the bigger picture. If he's reckless enough to brandish a loaded gun and shoot himself in the thigh, he could have also been reckless enough to brandish a loaded gun and accidentally shoot (or maybe even kill) SOMEONE ELSE who happened to be nearby. This story could have been a lot more tragic than it was and now's as good a time as any for Roger Goodell to make an example out of this idiot.
And hopefully wake him up before he is added to the list of star athlete casualties.
If you cock an automatic firearm at someone, it puts a round in the chamber. If you then push the slide forward it does not disarm the weapon, it discharges it. Also, if you carry a firearm on your person with the safety off, you are liable to accidentally discharge it. Being on your person, it will likely to go into your person.
Well, I have to say that the sentence really doesn't fit the crime here, but I do really believe in some sort of idiot tax for the sheer stupidity factor. He should be charged with carrying a gun while imbibing alcohol and unsafely securing his gun (SWEAT PANTS!!!!! my god, they do actually make waist concealment holsters that would be covered by sweat pants and they cost less than $40) and discharging it without need. I do realize they don't write gun laws that way, but they should. I feel that much like abstinence sex education, just banning guns doesn't work. We should be pushing firearms education and have consequences for not following the rules that are taught at gun safety classes.
Having not followed this story TOO closely I never thought of a Second Amendment defense, but that WSJ article may have a point. Stupidty and/or carelessness aside, it does seem like a problem to have a license law that forbids people from getting a license without (much, if any) cause.
Does anybody know if this Second Amendment issue has been getting play?
I have a bunch of friends that are security guards in MD, DC, and VA. From what I've heard from them, this NY permit thing is not uncommon.
One friend used to work private security at Dullas for an airline that went to Qatar. He was given a permit to carry a weapon for his job. He has since left that job for a neighborhood security type job where he's basically a rent-a-cop who patrols low income neighborhoods in his issued Ford Mustang GT.
His VA permit was rejected because MD doesn't accept out of state permits. He can get a permit after 6 months for his current job, but it stays with the job. If he leaves/gets fired, he must get a new permit at a new job.
I see this as a state that just wants to issue permits for it's own residents and determine their own criteria for issuing permits and not just handing them out because another state passes them out. VA will honor only a handful of out of state permits and they will issue them to out of state residents.
I don't see this as a 2nd amendment issue because I don't see how Congress is limiting his rights in this case. It's a state issue and New York doesn't want non-residents just strolling in with guns. I don't see what's wrong with that.
From my research, it's VERY hard to get a gun permit in NJ and there are no concealed carry permits in NJ, so I wouldn't be surprised if NJ files some charges against him. Unless they can't prove that he took the gun from his home in NJ to NY and it as in NY all along, or someone (Pierce maybe?) gave it to him while in the state.
Originally posted by ZeruelI see this as a state that just wants to issue permits for it's own residents and determine their own criteria for issuing permits and not just handing them out because another state passes them out. VA will honor only a handful of out of state permits and they will issue them to out of state residents.
In that case, this may not be a Second Amendment issue, but judging by what you said, this could be an even BIGGER constitutional issue. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution guarantees, among many other things, freedom of movement between the states. There are like a bajillion Supreme Court cases where they've struck down various state laws that have put restrictions on nonresidents/new residents from doing various things, saying that those types of laws are impermissible restrictions on freedom of movement. State laws that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional under this line of thinking range from laws that put a minimum length-of-residency requirement on state voting rights to laws that refuse hunting licenses to nonresidents. And to me, it doesn't seem impossible to extend that line of thinking to include striking down a state law that refuses a license to carry a firearm to nonresidents.
It may SEEM reasonable for a state to want to give rights to its own residents that it forbids to other states' residents, but that sort of thing is almost always unconstitutional.
Well, I have to say that the sentence really doesn't fit the crime here, but I do really believe in some sort of idiot tax for the sheer stupidity factor.
I quite agree. With you I mean, but not the guy that wrote the WSJ article.
3.5 years is probably harsh given what he's actually being charged with - criminal possession of a weapon.
What he actually did though is discharge a gun in a public place thanks to his own stupidity and/or intake of alcohol. If that gun happened to be pointing somewhere other than Plaxico Burress' leg this story could have a much sadder footnote and I doubt you'd have anyone writing columns headlined "Free Plaxico Burress".
As it is, screw him. To me he's similar to someone who drives dangerously (and possibly whilst drunk) and winds up in an accident in which he's the only one injured. He may only have hurt himself, but that just means he was lucky. Or at least as lucky as a guy that just shot himself in the leg deserves to be.
I'd tend to wonder why firing a gun in public and without due cause or care isn't something that's chargeworthy rather than take the chance to bemoan NY's criteria for getting a permit as this guy has. We'll charge you for carrying it but NOT for firing it? Hoooo-kaaaaay.
Bottom line - there are people more deserving of our time and sympathy than Plaxico Burress. People who aren't unfathomable douchebags, for example.
I did actually consider getting a concealed permit when I turned 21 in Washington State (where it is a very simple process). My uncle really wanted me to get one and to carry a weapon at all times, especially since I'm not the biggest or strongest (though maybe sometimes the meanest) person. I decided against it because I'd rather stress about getting INTO a bad situation rather than stress about carrying a weapon. When you are carrying a weapon, you should be hyper-aware of not only where your weapon is at all times, but how close you let people get to you, how you move so as not to not give away that you are carrying a weapon, and to keep in mind at all times that it could be used against you. I have enough trouble walking through doorways without hitting both sides on my bad days (I'm rather clumsy) I just don't want to have to think about that sort of stuff all the time. Also in Washington State it doesn't matter if you have a permit or not, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon into an establishment that serves alcohol, or while you are imbibing alcohol. So the most likely places I was going to run into problems I wasn't going to legally be allowed to have it anyway. Right around the same time I was making this decision, the friend of a friend with a carry permit got carjacked and ended up shooting and killing the carjacker. This was of course the sort of "worst case scenario" that you GET a permit for, and the guy was really really upset and I got he impression that if he could have gone and done everything over again, he wouldn't have had a gun on him that night, and would have rather given up his car than having to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed someone. I know myself, and I know that if I had a gun in that situation I would have done the same thing, and felt the same way about it. I try not to talk to my uncle about it, because it worries him to even think about me taking the garbage out at night without a gun because there might be bears, coyotes, or wildcats in my yard (there might actually, we are that rural). Personally, I'd still rather give them my trash in a forceful manner, yell real loud, and hope for the best.
I still may get a permit in the future, but more because of the fact that none of the vehicles we own have a trunk, and I'd like to legally go down to the range and knock out a few boxes of ammo every now and again. I would have to be not only worried for my own life on a constant or reoccurring basis, but that of loved ones close to me to actually carry on a regular basis. It just isn't something I'm willing to go through without that kind of threat.
It just makes me sick that anyone who would carry a concealed weapon would do so without thinking about all of these things, and actually go against gun safety training they had actually received. It should be a crime to be stupid and careless about things that are capable of killing others, not just for having them.
After spending one miserable season with the Oakland Raiders, running back Dominic Rhodes-- a key player in the Colts' Super Bowl XLI victory over the Chicago Bears-- is back in a Colts uniform, signing a one-year deal for the veteran's minimum.