Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 30, 2022, 12:44:26 AMSorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

Again, this just isn't a correct interpretation of the actual holding of the court. Feel free to show me where in this opinion its stated that the Second Amendment a universal right to carry a firearm in public. At best, they state that there are legitimate reasons - specifically self-defense - for a person to want to carry a weapon in public, hence why they struck down the "proper cause" requirement of New York's statute. Most of the other time spent on the topic is largely dicta which doesn't control any further rulings of the court (though they've largely dispensed with any idea that long-standing precedent is settled, so I guess it's immaterial either way).

A completely different case from more than a decade prior, Heller, does (as you identify) stand for the proposition that a law banning a person from having a firearm in their home was unconstitutional (provided that they weren't disqualified from the Second Amendment's protections). But I don't see how this makes your above statement regarding what the actual holding of Bruen is somehow correct. And moreover, Heller dealt largely with an interpretation of the term "militia" - something not at issue at all in Bruen.

It's similarly farcical to imply Burress did what he did out of some upstanding moral belief that the law was unconstitutional and he would someday be exonerated or proven correct. You're also assuming that in the absence of a "proper cause" requirement, New York wouldn't be allowed to impose any conditions on the issuance of a concealed carry license and Burress would have been issued a license and legally allowed to carry. Except that's not what Bruen says, and even Alito's concurrence makes it clear that they were not saying whether any sort of limitation was unconstitutional, simply the one at issue. And guess what? The revised statute that New York implemented after Bruen prevents concealed carry license holders from bringing their weapons into bars. Under that schema, Burress still (presuming he applied for a license and got it) would have broken the law by doing what he did under the current iteration of the statute.

 Actually read the decision. If you did you'd have seen this.

Quote"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 29, 2022, 02:05:05 PMThis is not correct. Bruen states that New York's requirement to state a proper cause for a concealed carry license is unconstitutional. Plaxico didn't have a New York (or New Jersey) license at all, and his Florida one had expired at the time of the incident. He was effectively concealing an unlicensed firearm and discharged it in a public setting. There's absolutely no basis to have his record "expunged."

That's partially correct, but before they ruled on that point they found you have a right to carry a firearm out of the home for protection. In the Heller case the court found you have a right to have one in your home. That's why other non CCW states like Cali, ill, NJ and Hawaii are now being forced to issue permits.

And it's farcical to say that he didn't have a carry permit because the state refused to issue them except to exceedingly wealthy people and politicians. They used their arbitrarily enforced proper cause clause to decide who did and didn't get a permit. His choice was to break what is now an unconstitutional law or not carry at all.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2022, 01:46:53 PMJust to be clear, I am not advocating for the weakening of gun laws.  In fact, in light of the never-ending mass shootings, I would suggest the opposite. 

My point was if you consider that Plax's intent was not to rob or shoot someone, I felt the punishment was overly harsh.  To me, the punishment seemed more about political considerations (using a celebrity to make a point by punishing him more) than it was about ensuring justice was properly and fairly served.

On the second point you'd be completely wrong. The sentencing guidelines for illegally carrying in NY is mandatory. If he was given a lesser sentence it would have been the case of a celebrity getting special treatment regular people don't.

Agree with the decision or not but according the the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. If it happened now he would have an avenue to appeal his conviction avoiding jail. One day hopefully he'll have his record expunged. Yes what he did was stupid and reckless but at the end of the day the only person who suffered from that decision was Burress.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on September 01, 2022, 09:05:38 PMFair enough. I could see Toney having a big breakout year this year potentially. He needs to actually do it though. So far, apart from a couple of fleeting glimpses, it has been nothing but talk with him.

Lord knows we desperately need one of our receivers to have a great year.

Empire records had great music in the movie but sadly most of it was left off the soundtrack. I guess they didn't want to pay the royalties.

Whoever picked that name must have a room temperature iq. I get that they had to change it but good lord they couldn

I am very sorry for his loss!

Sadly the vitriol that marks our politics is creeping over to other facets of life. Fans of good faith can view the situation differently and still be good fans. Anyone who questions the fandom of others should probably reconsider their participation here. It

Quote from: Jaime on March 08, 2017, 08:15:30 PM
QB Watson - I don't believe he's got the football IQ to excel at the next level.

DT McDowell - thinking we're overdrafting a bit with him at number 23 overall.

LB Reddick - not sold on the hype, a bit of a workout Warrior. We have bigger needs.

TE Howard - right in our wheelhouse. Proven Player, mis-match nitemare. Strong position of  need.

RB McCaffery - Frank Gifford Lite. At 197 lbs. Don't think heither is  built for the long haul.

OT Bolles - 2nd Rd. Talent that's getting kicked up the food chain because of a shallow OL pool.

OT Ramczyk - small body of work. Babywhales has dah Skinney on this Prospect.

My two cents...

Coming out of UVA Tiki Barber was 195 pounds, Warwick Dunn was 185 and Jamal Charles was under 200 as well. If you're really fast it isn't an issue.  I don't see him as an every down back, but you can use him in that role on a limited basis. You can also use him on third down, in the slot, and returning punts and kickoffs. Versatility makes him valuable at that spot IMHO.

FWIW, Ball ran a 4.49 and a 4.51 at his pro day workout which is much more consistent with his previous 40 times than his number from the combine.

Quote from: nygsem on June 02, 2012, 07:39:34 AM

Quote from: Jian on June 02, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
  Obama is not the first president to raise the question of whether or not he is a genuine US citizen.

Obama didn't raise the question, the idiot birthers did.  Its obvious to me that facts didn't matter, it was all simply a feeble attempt at political gain. Trump, on the other hand, has his own motives for continuing this nonsense.

Interestingly enough the first person to question is the President was a natural born citizen was a Clinton operative who filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia during the Democratic primaries. I get a good laugh when I hear the various talking heads claiming that the whole issue was started by the GOP. For the record I've never bought into that nonsense but in some regards the President made it an issue by not releasing his long form birth certificate until three years later.

You guys realize that Lincoln was, for all intents and purposes, a tyrant. He saved the union and freed the slaves but he also stripped American citizens of their right to Habeus Corpus which allowed him to hold critics of his administration without due process. He also stripped some American citizens of their right to a jury trial and replaced it with military tribunals. Often those tribunals were so stacked in the governments favor that the defendant had no chance of being exonerated. Hundreds of citizens were sent to their deaths at the hands of those tribunals.

Lincoln was a complex man, both good and bad, but there is no way that a man who shredded the bill of rights and repudiated the ideas espoused in the Declaration of Independence should go down as our greatest President. I'd take Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Teddy Rex, Truman and Reagan before I'd even begin to consider where to place Lincoln.

This thread is tedious.....

Oops. I dropped the ball on that one. I glanced at his post quickly and misread it.