So Plaxico Burress is getting two years for gun possession, where is the NRA to defend him???

Here's a Black man who carried a gun, (unlicensed and concealed) in NY City, shot himself, but the NRA didn't jump to his defence? Why not? This would have been a CLASSIC case of upholding the 2nd Amendment, wouldn't it? I mean, a high-profile sports star brings a gun for protection, shoots himself accidentally, and now get to do a couple of years for shooting himself and losing his job (a high-paying job at that).

Where is the justice NRA members????



http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/burress-expected-to-plead-guilty-in-weapons-case/?ref=sports

In this case, besides having an unlicensed firearm, he also broke laws against drinking alcohol while carrying, and reckless endangerment by way of handling a pistol unsafely.

Personally I think two years is a bit harsh given that the only person he hurt was himself, particularly when you compare it to something like what Michael Vick got, but on the bright side it's also true he's not getting a pass by way of being a celebrity.

weapons to political events. Does anyone, for one second think that BOZO in NH, that was so intent on preening for the camera (with his McVeigh-modified Jefferson Tree of Liberty quote), could not have had his holstered gun grabbed by someone who DID have nefarious intent? REALLY?

Point 1, he is Black

Point 2, he is still Black so he must be punished and he is a criminal for daring to carry an illegal gun.

This sentence was a plea deal. I don't think it's a very good plea deal, but then I don't know all the particulars and neither do you.

What is hard to understand about that?

The NRA defense fund mostly support lawsuits not criminal charges. Lawsuits like getting rid of handgun ban in chicago.

The few instances where the support criminal charges it either
a) a false arrest.
b) the law and/or situation is ambiguous and it hurts gun owners in general for there to be an over reaching precedent set.

Please find a similar example where NRA Legal Defense Fund supported a "white man" (or any person).

Burress was an idiot.

The law in NYC is clear and absolute. I may disagree with it and probably will never live in NYC but if it I did I would accept it as a cost of living in NYC.

The law requires a permit for conceal carry
Burris had no permit
He violated the law and will now be a felon.

The sheer irony is the "may issue" permit system in NYC is full of cronyism. The rich, the political, the powerful have no problem getting a permit. It is just the middle income, 9-5, blue collar guy who has no chance in hell of getting one. Had Burress applied for a permit or had one of his lawyers do it he likely would have gotten one.

Had he been falsely arrested no doubt the NRA legal defense fund would have jumped in as they would have for the AR-15 toting black man in AZ.

Burris broke the law. It is clear cut, open and shut case. The law ("no right is unlimited") in NYC requires a permit to carry concealed.
He carried concealed.
He had no permit
He is a felon.

President. They could have extended it legally. No one is suggesting arrest. But NRA should be consistent in determining what is reckless and bringing a holstered loaded gun on your thigh while distracted in a very contentious political debate, thereby offering every possibility for someone to grab the gun and use it, is hardly responsible.

Burris is not the issue. He is irresponsible. So too are these armed idiots at political events, legal or not.

Since they didn't the area where the protesters had guns it was not unlawful to do so. You might think it is irresponsible, hell 99% of American might think it is irresponsible but the law doesn't (currently) consider it reckless endangerment.

IF you (or more correctly the citizens of AZ) think it should then the law should be updated to make that action illegal, until it is illegal it is legal.

The NRA doesn't determine the law that is the job of the legislature.
The legislature in AZ decided what happened in AZ should not be against the law.
The legislature in NYC decided what happened should be against the law.

Only reason I brought up AZ was IF the man in AZ was falsely arrested it is possible (but I don't know for sure) that the NRA defense fund may have defended him. The key point would be false arrest.

they broke the law and should be arrested. You seem to have issues with misunderstanding the point of my posts.

NRA lobbies for laws and policies. They advocate on these laws. That they do not consider any limits on open (or concealed carry) to be appropriate-- or the converse to be reckless-- is the issue. Their extremism is best revealed here in the video linked below. I don't know if you are similarly so consumed by guns that you can not put any limits whatsoever to their use and carriage, but if you do agree with this NRA extremist in the video linked below, I can only sadly assume there is no room for further discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x356884

Where do you come up with this junk?
Guess the NRA accidentally supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, they also accidentally supported the NICS (instant background check). They accidentally supported adding mental health information to NICS (NICS Modernization Act). They must have also accidentally lobbied and secure federal funding for Project Exile to enforce federal gun laws (which dropped gun crime rate in Richmond 40%).

Not content with making up stuff about the NRA, then comes the ad-hominem attack "if you ... can not put any limits whatsoever to their use and carriage". Meh. If that is what you need to tell yourself go ahead.

I am for keeping weapons out of the hands of felons and other prohibited persons.
My post history on DU will affirm to the fact that I am for both civilian access to NICS and laws require its use in person to person transactions.
I have written to by Congressman on this issue because I feel it would end the "gun show loophole" talking point once and for all.
I am for restrictions on carrying weapons (open or concealed is not really relevant to me) in sensitive locations.
Never once have I said the second is unlimited. I routinely quote DC v. Heller in which SCOTUS agrees it isn't unlimited.

Just because we differ on the idea that someone down the street from an event without line of sight to the President isn't a "sensitive location" means I support no restrictions.

Well tell yourself what you want to believe. It is all a matter of faith isn't it, like a Holy Crusade where facts don't matter.

Of course if you actually did some research you would realize you proved by point. The person in the video wasn't from the NRA, it was from the GOA. The GOA was formed from people who left the NRA because they felt it compromised too much.

Wait why would they need to leave if as you said "That they do not consider any limits on open (or concealed carry) to be appropriate". Sound kinda like they did consider some limits to be appropriate even losing members as a result".

Now if I got you wrong and facts do matter you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America

You might also want to check out their website and see how much they bash the NRA for being a compromising gun-control supporting group.

Whether he is NRA or GOA, he represents the extreme of gun philosophy that is being echoed in these laws and by those who support these gun-wielding intimidation demonstrations. Once you do, we can "speak."

I am not anti-gun, anti-gun ownership, or specifically anti-NRA. I am a rationalist and believe a balance between gun rights and public safety is a necessity-- something that is seemingly in short supply among some gun enthusiasts. Hopefully not with you. But, NRA has hardly been the bastion of rationality that you portray.

The truth is the man speaks for the GOA and likely a fringe section of an already fringe group that considers the NRA left wingers.

He doesn't speak for the NRA and he certainly doesn't speak for me.

Which only underscores my original point... NRA needs to come out vocally and publicly to interject some rationality into these discussions.

Man bent on assassinating the President decides to mingle in crowd outside the secure zone looking for someone who has a loaded weapon in plain view and who is being closely watched by the police and SS. Man decides to grab other man's gun from his holster and make an attempt to penetrate the secure zone with the intent of killing President Obama. Man doesn't get far before he is gunned down himself but dies happy knowing he will have gotten a Darwin Award for his efforts.

Not the best plan.

It's just that simple.

The NRA? I guess the NRA doesn't want to get involved with morans!

they could have at least started a legal defense fund to help bring down the archaic NYC gun laws.......

:sarcasm:

:shrug:

but apparently the DA thinks this is a high crime so he gets the max.

Is he likely to serve the whole term or is this a crime where people generally get out with early release? I don't know the answer myself.

Why was he going to a nightclub at 1:30 am with a weapons, allowed to enter with a gun, headed straight for the VIP lounge, gun in his waistband and not a holster. Understand? The whole thing sounds like he intended to do something besides go out with the ability of self defense- it sounds like he was on a mission.

there to rob the place.

Jesus you people kill me. Want to do a bran scan on him too to find out what was really on his mind?

The man has accepted a 2 year sentence in plea bargain on a minor charge. Clearly, he fears the alternative. GIven the reluctance we might expect for a jury of his "peers" to have for sending a sports star to jail for something minor, we might reasonably expect that Burress feels he made the wise decision. So clearly, we're not privy to the entirety of that decision. Without a bran scan that is.

The max was 15 years. 2 years is an 87% reduction from the max sentence. He "accepted" 2 years because 2 years is a hell of a lot better than 15. Hell he might even be able to play football again in 2 years (Vic anyone). 15 years that is a big chunk of his life.

Reckless Endangerment is not a "minor charge" it is one step below assault.

Also the plea was win-win.

He was facing 3 charges
weapons possession 1 to 4 years
weapons possession 1 to 4 years
reckless endagerment 2.5 to 7 years

So lets assume he went to court and beat the reckless BUT he lost on the 2 weapons charges. The minimum would be 2 years but the max is 8 years. That likely is best case scenario the weapons charges are open and shut. Ignorance of the law is no defense. So if he tried to fight and got a "good outcome" best case scenario he would still do 2 years but more likely he would do 8 years.

Now beating the reckless is not guaranteed and if convicted on that he is looking at 3.5 to 15 years (2x to 8x his plea deal).

It doesn't take a brain scan to see why he took a plea. It also doesn't take a brain scan to see why the DA set the plea at 2 years (that was the minimum he likely would have gotten at trial).

The DA didn't have to plea bargain at all--all they were saving themselves was a few days of time and effort at the trial. With an open and shut case, it's no mystery why he'd take 2 years, and maybe parole after one, over 3 1/2 years.

"...carried a gun, (unlicensed and concealed) in NY City, shot himself..."

This truly deserves an unrec

...people using hyperbole to pump up a story that has NOTHING to do with race.

Plaxico fucked up and will pay the price. He was committing an illegal act that could have injured or killed many other people. What if he had started a stampede - dozens could have been killed.

But never, ever let the freaking facts get in the way of trying to paint some group or criminal proceedings as racist....

Sheesh

I am having a hard time equating this issue of poaching with some asshole bringing a loaded gun into a crowded club.

However, you did not address my point that you are injecting race into a debate where it does not belong.

Look down thread, another member made a perfect point about the difference. Guy KILLS a pedestrian while drunk, he pleas to 30 days in jail.

You don't see the disparity?

I see ignored peoples

The NRA made NYC have tougher laws for gun possession than for vehicular manslaughter? They did it in the past because they knew someday in the future a rich but stupid black football player would get punished. Then they would "winz".


The bad news for him is NYC prosecutors have a hard-on for gun cases and gun cases generally have stiff minimum sentences. There is no real chance to even fight the conviction. The charges doesn't require malice or intent so it is unlikely his defense would do much good. He was looking at 15 years. He plead it down 87% which is likely the most the prosecutor would accept.

Maybe you should lobby to make gun laws softer. If the max had been something like 5 years he likely would have only got 6 months or something like that.

Lobby for fairer gun laws DainBramaged!

...the example that you provided (which has zip to do with the NRA or guns) is 30 days in jail for a BLACK GUY. Donte Stallworth IS black and got the 30 days.

Please try again....or don't.

Any evidence the NRA defended someone from a criminal charge stemming from this law?
No of course not.

Lobbying to change, repeal, reduce laws happens all the time by special interest groups.
Defending someone from open & shut criminal charges after the fact is another.

The NRA legal defense fund rarely accept criminal cases and they don't accept them simply because someone did something stupid in relation to a gun law.

They usually accept cases where either the person was falsely arrested OR situations where the law is unclear or burdensome on law abiding gun owners or the law could result in accidental violation.

None of which apply here. Burress was not falsely arrested and the law is very clear. He simply chose to ignore it. Why would anyone defend that? Someone just decides the law doesn't apply to them because they are rich and powerful

The NRA's beef with H.B. 97 is that it treats all offenders the same regardless of the severity of the offense. A hunter who shoots a turkey 5 minutes or so before or after legal hunting hours would get the same punishment as a poacher who is shooting trophy bucks at midnight from his pickup truck.

It would be like be getting caught driving 5 miles over the speed limit and getting the same punishment as one caught driving drunk at 110.

If he wanted to carry a firearm he could have done what millions of Americans do:
a) gotten a permit in NYC (very difficult)
b) moved somewhere where getting a permit is easier ("shall issue")
c) moved somewhere where no permit is required
d) accepted he can't legally carry a firearm in his current location.

He chose
e) break multiple firearm laws.

So now he will be a felon and never be able to own a firearm. Probably he is safer as a prohibited felon. I mean putting a gun in your pants rights next to your dangly bits. WTF? What could possibly go wrong with that? There is a reason why man invented the holster and before that the scabbard.

In New York City, concealed carry permits are typically only issued to former police officers and the rich/powerful/famous. He'd have probably been able to get one, while a regular person would not have. So add another count of "carrying while stupid."

Yes, he should be punished but they are making him an example.


I snipped this from one of the comments from a former prosecutor

<snip>
However, this sentence should be contrasted with the sentence negotiated by Donte Stallworth’s attorneys this past spring. Stallworth killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence. He was sentenced to only 30 days in the county jail after apparently negotiating a civil settlement with the family of the deceased. There seems to something very wrong with his doing only 30 days for killing a person while intoxicated as compared to Burress’s two years for essentially shooting himself. While I realize Stallworth has been suspended from the NFL for the entire season, the vast discrepancy in these sentences is ridiculous.
<snip>

He may have been unbelievably stupid in carrying a gun and NOT knowing how to use it, but don't consider it a capitol crime and make him an example. He is suspended indefinitely by the NFL and was dropped by the Giants. Why should he be treated differently than a White man with a more severe crime?

So no matter what he would get at least one year.

The DA obviously thinks the circumstances warrant more than the minimum:
* unlawful carry - ok that is bad enough
* in a nightclub (where even those with a permit in NYC can't carry) - yeah what could go wrong with that
* in his pants - shows a complete lack of understanding of the risks of an upholstered firearm
* firearm discharged - in this instance he shot himself but just as likely could have shot someone else in the head.

Given 1 year in the minimum for unlawful carry and 2 years is the max. I don't see anything wrong with him getting a sentence at or near the max.

Can anyone think of an unlawful carry situation that would be any worse?

EDIT: On second look he had 3 charges (2 weapon possession charges & reckless endangerment). So if he had gone to trial even if he beat the reckless endangerment charge (very iffy) he would still be looking at 2 to 8 years in Prison. So pleading was a no brainer. He got the same amount of time as a best case scenario at trial.

Donte Stallworth is black you "everything is racist" idiot.

It is a very good indication on how you see the world when you hear another football star got a lighter sentence and ASSUMED he was white.

Well maybe he is really tan but he looks black to me.

Maybe just maybe Burress deserved 2 years for being and idiot, breaking the law and possibly killing someone.

Thanks to Rebubula for pointing this hilarious fact out upthread.

Silly...

:sarcasm: <-if needed

1) The NRA does not side with criminal defendants.

2) Unless the purpose is to challenge and/or overturn an existing gun law... or unless there is a clear cut case of a prosecutor willfully ignoring the law or misinterpreting the law, The NRA rarely assists or comes to the aid of an individual.

3) The NRA doesn't challenge cases in states/communities where the cards are heavily stacked against them.

4) The NRA doesn't have any standing in this case because NYC law clearly states that one must be properly licensed in order to carry a concealed firearm. Until the SCOTUS rules and incorporates that the RKBA applies to the states, there is no legal basis for the NRA to challenge current NYC handgun laws.

However... there is a ray of sunshine on the horizon; with at least 3 cases filed for review this term that could incorporate the Heller decision to apply to the states, and another one recently filed that challenges DCs concealed carry laws, I'd say that the NRA and other RKBA advocacy groups have bigger fish to fry right now.

Here's hoping for another string of 2nd amendenmt victories.

If the case were to go to trial and Mr. Burress were convicted of all charges — two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and one count of second-degree reckless endangerment — he could face 3½ to 15 years in prison. The plea agreement still needs the approval of a State Supreme Court justice.

Two counts of criminal possession of weapon
One count of second-degree reckless endangerment
Maximum time is convicted (and conviction looks pretty likely being an open & shut case).

One doesn't need to prove intent for either the weapons charge or endangerment. Unlike a charge involving malice engagement is a charge simply for the action (or lack of aciton) not ones intent.

So he got a 87% sentence reduction by not wasting the states time & money for a trial that would almost certainly result in 3 convictions.

They are a bunch of racist fucktards - who do you think they're so scared of that they have to have guns to protect themselves...

oh wait, you don't see what I see. They is commin' to his defense, yes they is...... NOT.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

I have all the gun nuts, copp fellators and homophobes and misogynist assholes on ignore - and I don't think anyone needs a venn diagram too see how much they overlap, LOL!

truth hurts.

He didn't like you calling him white.

Your "star" example of white people getting lighter sentences.

Dupe.

...just you and the OP.

There are MANY times where people are convicted on the color of their skin. Save your outrage for one of those times.

For gun and drug crimes than white defendants, many times in the same courts, I'm simply going to consider you ill informed.

Whites arrested outnumber blacks by a wide margin, however it's found that more blacks are incarcerated for longer sentences, which results in an over representation of blacks residing in American Prisons. The numbers just don't add up.

http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/952/prmID/1327

One reason perhaps, is that our criminal justice system has always been bifurcated in regards to "black" crimes vs. "white" crimes, hence the disparity in longer sentences for crack possession vs. powdered cocaine, per se. Only recently, is that disparity under consideration in Congress for equalization of sentences.

That's only one example of the problem. I'm absolutely sure that race is a consideration in many of those sentences. Because despite the fallacy of post racialism that's being promoted after the election of Barack Obama, on the ground in many of our courts, America is still a racist country. The numbers bear this out.

I'm just going to ask you this: why is this so? Does this mean that crimes committed by blacks are inherently more egregious that those committed by whites? Or perhaps the quality of legal representation is significantly poorer for blacks vs. whites, even if both groups have the same level of access? How would this explain Burress' two year sentence? Surely he had money for a good lawyer, right?

I don't know. You can look at the numbers and dismiss them with the same idealism by which you just dismissed me and the OP. But perhaps, there may be a little bit more to the story to understand, I think.

All you have to do is look for yourself.

:hi:

The NRA supports the enforcement of existing gun laws and that is exactly what happened. Burress plead guilty and cut a plea deal. I don't see any issue here.

The NRA is NOT a civil rights organization. If you think this is a civil rights matter and race is involved, why aren't you all over the NAACP?

Obvious flamebait.

He's a criminal, no gun rights group would defend him.

The NRA opposes the strict NYC gun control laws but they don't support people committing crimes with a gun such as Burress did.