Plax in prison

[Rambo89]

Because there are no new laws or old laws that will limit or stop gun violence.  The bad guys will always find a way to get a gun or a device to cause harm!

All new laws do is make legal gun owners criminals.

If someone wants to do harm they will.

The root of the problem isn't the gun, it's the individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree.  I think we should be doing everything possible to address mass shootings what causes them and how they are able to be carried out.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Slugsy, identifying and treating mental illness, or one struggling to maintain mental health and wellness (e.g. stress management) is indeed part of the problem. It's not something that is easy to discuss, nor is it easy to live with someone who suffers from a form of it (e.g. depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders). Whether we're talking about guns, or any other subject, it impacts that person and those around them. The trouble you run into is that there are very few "real" treatment specialists/centers where one afflicted can go and receive "real" care. It's not as simple as going on Dr. Phil and getting to go to a dual-diagnosis facility followed by some rehabilitation place. I can share horror stories of what reality looks like for afflicted persons but I won't go into detail here. Also, if someone with a diagnosed mental illness ends up getting in trouble with the law, regarding a firearm, that individual will be placed on the FBI list as far as being prohibited from ever owning a firearm again.

It is a very complicated issue and our society is currently not equipped to deal with it with even the slightest degree of effectiveness.

Peace!

Kart

100% agree and with privacy Laws for your medical condition etc it gets even muddier!

Red flag laws are scary too cause all it takes is someone that doesn't like you or you have issue with to make an accusation and without due process you can have your property (guns) removed which also is a whole other issue

It's not an easy topic, it's made worse because of the political element that is charged with it.

What most people who are against guns can't comprehend is it's not the gun.  A gun loaded on the table by itself is not going to hurt anyone.

Just as a fork doesn't make people fat and a car doesn't commit a drunk driving incident!  The person behind it all is the issue and fixing that is the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

I disagree.  I think we should be doing everything possible to address mass shootings what causes them and how they are able to be carried out.

You can disagree, But show me one law that prevents people from shooting others?

How would any law prevent it?  It can't.

It won't, it can't!  Unless they create something that can detect your intent.

Just like you can't pass any laws to prevent someone from buying a car, drink excessively and go out drunk driving and kill people doing so. 

Even passing background checks are not the answer, yes if you can't pass one it makes it harder to get one legally but if you want one you can get one on the street.  I am for background checks, but if you have no record or past that sends up a flag, you can still then buy a gun legally and then kill people with it.

So again it's not the gun or the ammo that's the issue   Just likes it's not the car it's the person operating it.

To limit the issue we have to address the people issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

As a police officer I can tell you , especially in a state like New Jersey almost no one goes to jail for extended period of times for a DUI ... even if it did cause an injury ... at the end of the day by definition it is still an "accident" and you do get booked for the DUI but that's it

I agree his prison sentence was a bit much ...but that's because it happened in states like Jersey and New York where they hate guns so much that they used buress as an example

If that police officer would have killed that person then yes that is a different beast... I'm not saying what he did was right because it is 100% not right

It's the elected leaders who cause this ...Jersey , ny , Illinois etc they hate guns so much they will do anything to get rid of them

But the guy who actually shot someone gets released because of "bail reform" ....then 9/10 times is committing some form of other crimes in the near future

FYI I am not speaking on behalf of any police department but my own observations and facts

Kill

Thank you for your service!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

Kart

100% agree and with privacy Laws for your medical condition etc it gets even muddier!

Red flag laws are scary too cause all it takes is someone that doesn't like you or you have issue with to make an accusation and without due process you can have your property (guns) removed which also is a whole other issue

It's not an easy topic, it's made worse because of the political element that is charged with it.

What most people who are against guns can't comprehend is it's not the gun.  A gun loaded on the table by itself is not going to hurt anyone.

Just as a fork doesn't make people fat and a car doesn't commit a drunk driving incident!  The person behind it all is the issue and fixing that is the problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true. These laws are nothing more than a political ploy to placate voters while they know they can't stop the smuggling of illegal firearms going into the state. The Red Flag laws are reason enough to carry legal insurance.

Plax would have gone to jail for a much harsher sentence if it happened today. Illegal firearm without a permit to carry or permit to purchase, taking across state lines, reckless endangerment...

[DJN]

The law enforcement environment in NYC is much different now than it was in 2008.  I can't help thinking the disposition of the case would be far different today. 

Today forget about it...They'd claim he was the only one victimized and the charges would be dropped...Gun laws are only supposed to be enforced on people living in the suburbs in 2022

[TDToomer]

After reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

[H-Town G-Fan]

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.

Sorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.

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.

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.

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.

[MightyGiants]

After reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

Yeah, I tend to agree.  I always thought the right to life trumped all other rights.

[TONKA56]

After reading the last 2 pages of this thread it is clear that we will never fix the gun violence problem in this Country and we will continue to lead the world in mass shootings. There is no level of violence that will convince the hard liners that something needs to change.

Gun violence psychology is not all that different from suicidal psychology. An industrial society had been created intentionally or not where people are forced to work in cubes...where they have ever ever diminishing opportunities for autonomy and self determination. We have moved away from the natural world. Social media is toxic to self esteem. Obviously I've grossly simplified this for the sake of brevity but the point is that the modern world is highly toxic to healthy self esteem and relationship with other humans.

Not easily fixed, but given the current climate, handing over all of our arms to a state that grows ever more totalitarian and hostile doesn't seem like a fantastic idea either.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Yeah, I tend to agree.  I always thought the right to life trumped all other rights.

If that is the case then abortion would be completely outlawed, wouldn't it?

If that was the case then the right to privacy would/could be stripped away.  As limiting your privacy especially with mental health could keep others safe.

No one right can have more weight then another and they all must be equal under the laws otherwise those who believe in some rights over another would/could weight them differently and lessen or remove your rights based on their wants and beliefs are.  Which then erodes your rights.

[MightyGiants]

If that is the case then abortion would be completely outlawed, wouldn't it?

If that was the case then the right to privacy would/could be stripped away.  As limiting your privacy especially with mental health could keep others safe.

No one right can have more weight then another and they all must be equal under the laws otherwise those who believe in some rights over another would/could weight them differently and lessen or remove your rights based on their wants and beliefs are.  Which then erodes your rights.

Rights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

[TONKA56]

Rights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

The right to life can be interpreted i.e. the right to self protection is also the right to life.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Rights constantly come into conflict, and those rights have to be weighed in terms of importance.  For example, the right of your neighbor to have a loud party at 3 in the morning is trumped by your right to peace and quiet and a good night's sleep(I can give many other examples as well).    I think it's fair to say that the right to life far outweighs all other rights.

It's not that one right trumps another. 

In the case you stated it's that there is a noise ordinance.  The ordinance doesn't say you can NEVER have a loud party.  So it's not that you lose the right to do so, it gives parameters on when you can.

There in lies the difference between losing a right and having the right to still be able to, but having guidelines on it.

By outlawing/limiting guns it strips legal law abiding American citizens of their constitutional right to bare arms which "shall not be infringed" and by infringing on those rights it could have an effect on me preserving myself or families life.  So in the preservation of life at all costs its seems by outlawing firearms it contradicts my right to protect my life and the life of those I love.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kartanoman]

I have nothing more to add apart from my wanting to take the time and offer kudos to everyone offering their opinions, experiences and insight into an incredibly difficult and complex issue. Reading the thread, in its entirety, offers a wealth of information to reflect on. Not just for Plaxico Burress, but also for the laws intended to protect us (NOTE: "placate the voters" (Ed Vette) ... a profound thought).

There's no direct solution to the issues presented but I just wanted to commend my fellow contributors for an excellent discussion.

Salut!

Peace!