Plaxico Burress Indicted

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:37:46 PM EST
Tags: Plaxico Burress (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress was indicted today on state charges of possession of a loaded pistol and reckless endangerment as a result of an incident in which he shot himself in the leg at a Manhattan nightclub. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence if convicted on two of the counts.

The grand jury rejected an indictment of Antonio Pierce, who according to police, took the gun back to his home in New Jersey and then arranged for it to be returned to Burress. The gun and an empty magazine were ultimately recovered at Burress' home.

The New York County Grand Jury heard from twenty-two witnesses, including PLAXICO BURRESS and Antonio Pierce, and considered 16 exhibits. BURRESS is charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, one for possession of a loaded firearm not in his home or place of business, and one for possession of a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another.

[More...]

Since the 2006 revision of New York State’s gun laws, each of the weapons possession counts carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years in state prison, and a maximum sentence of 15 years in state prison. On the facts of this case, the law would require that the sentences on those two charges be imposed concurrently. The charge of Reckless Endangerment carries a maximum sentence of 1 year in jail.

3.5 years sounds excessive to me for shooting yourself in the leg -- and for simply possessing a loaded firearm in a place other than your home or business. I can see the rationale behind a stiff penalty for having a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another, but not for simple possession in a place other than your home or business. Maybe I'm misreading the press release.

Update: Reuters report here. And I'm not re-reading the press release, he's really subject to a mandatory minimum for simple possession. Jonathan Blanks at Reason wrote in December about this in Mandatory Minimums, Maximum Stupidity.

< Was John McCain Born In The US? | From The Pols Are Pols File . . . >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Plaxico Burress Indicted | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What a waste (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:49:27 PM EST

of resources.

Should have let him plead and pay a stiff fine and get on with more important things.

He testified before the grand jury (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:50:38 PM EST

What do you think of that decision J?

: Excellent question. (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:59:07 PM EST

: Normally I don't advise it but (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:07:52 PM EST

plea negotiations had broken down and his lawyer, Ben Branfman, is excellent and knows what he is doing. Perhaps Burress had some exculpatory evidence he wanted the grand jury to hear, or some explanations, that he thought could avoid an indictment.
Due to NY's ridiculous law enacted in the 90's making simple possession a mandatory minimum crime, he didn't have many other options.
On the other hand, it probably deprives him of raising the defense at trial that he wasn't the one holding the gun when it discharged. The DA would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. I assume he would have been asked that question by the grand jury.

I'm glad Pierce... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:57:41 PM EST

dodged the prosecutorial bullet...I hate to see people go down for simply helping a friend in a bind....good job grand jury.

To think Plaxico might get 3 1/2 years in a cage boggles my mind, but my mind is always boggled at the sentences we threaten and oftentimes deliver, especially when there is no victim to be found. What ever happened to "no harm, no foul"?

I'm surprised Pierce was not indicted. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:02:51 PM EST

But regarding Plaxico, hypothetically speaking are you ok with a person in a commercial indoor venue being armed with a loaded firearm and so unsavvy re sd. loaded firearm as to shoot self in leg?


Big difference between (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:08:56 PM EST

being ok with it and providing a mandatory minimum 3.5 year sentence for it. The judge should have discretion in sentencing based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case. Here the judge will have none. That's wrong.


Interesting, because, as you know, (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:24:51 PM EST

there are some criminal penalties in CA which everyone thought were mandatory minimums until CA Supreme Court sd. the sentencing court always has discretion--Legislature can't take it away.


Good to know (none / 0) (#27)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:18:38 PM EST

But most judges get appointed right from the prosecutor's office. Not too many come from a civil litigation background, or God forbid, a criminal defense background.

The deck is stacked.

I will hope to do my part to unstack it--at least a little.


: Many former prosecutors here are (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:05:32 PM EST

appointed or elected to the bench. Occasional criminal defense attorney. Hard to find civil litigators in private practice who will take the substantial pay cut, but those who are willing and have a good reputation are quickly appointed.

Easy answer: take away his gun permit (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:14:48 PM EST

No more guns for you Mr. Butterfigners. Not enough punishment? Fine him, make him pick up garbage for 3 or 4 months....

I don't like the tilt towards law enforcement. I've decided to re-tool my practice as soon as practicable to take Civil Rights cases. The balance needs to be re-set and civil ligitation is one way to create it.


He didn't seem to think he needed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:21:21 PM EST

one to own a gun and carry it into a club tucked in his track pants waistband (are those waistbands really that strong that they could actually carry a gun there? or are we on to another level of his stupidity?)


Oh... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:35:02 PM EST

...that's a whole 'nother level of teh stoopid.

Running around with a loaded gun in the waistband of your track pants is a Fail of epic proportions.


Okay--but you really sound (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:35:42 PM EST

as if you are a big law and order person....Not my view...

There is no need for jail time here. The offense was a careless act, not an intentional one.


: Naw, not much of a L&O (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:49:52 PM EST

just pointing out the gun permit didn't seem to be an "issue" with him, he just ignored it.
I tend to try and look at both sides, I sometimes get a better view . . .

I know I'd feel differently if he shot himself (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:08:06 PM EST

in his home, but he took his stupidity to a public place.

I think 3.5 yrs is a tad steep. Vick only served 23mo (of course he got out of serving on state charges and didn't have to deal with the felony abuse charges)


Chris Rock: (none / 0) (#28)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:26:21 PM EST

"Why is Michael Vick in jail?"

Sarah Palin gets the state to kill wolves by shooting them from helicopters as their dark coats are silhoutted against the white snow.

Just like crack cocaine.


MV was in jail for a reason (none / 0) (#32)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:18:40 PM EST

and none of his time was for felony animal cruelty. Those were state charges . . .

What SP is doing is population control called hunting and still legal. As is canned hunting etc . . .

Last I heard, cocaine wasn't legal in either form . .


The penalties for crack cocaine (none / 0) (#36)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:33:14 PM EST

are far greater than powder cocaine.

I did truncate the point, which if expanded would include: If you're Sarah Palin and you shoot wolves in a very cruel way that nauseates many hunters, that is just fine; but if you do what Michael Vick did, then that is shocking and worse. One goes to jail, and is ostracized; the other lionized.

I really wonder if Michael Vick would be in jail if not for the animal cruelty charges.


Yes, he would have (none / 0) (#41)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:46:56 PM EST

and I think what Vick did was worse. Throwing pets in with the dogs for "entertainment"? I won't go into the other "finer" points of how he treated the dogs, but it goes beyond my comprehension as to how a person could do it. One shot to the head would have been upsetting, but at least somewhat humane (in the twisted scenario that was). And most fighters know how to admin meds, so they could have gone humanely, not in the sick and twisted ways they did.

As far as the wolves go, afaik, what she's doing is legal there. Doesn't mean I agree with it, like it, etc. Animal cruelty laws vary by state as do feelings towards hunting vary within the hunting communities.

I think you made a poor comparison with Palin and Vick. One is still doing something that is legal there. What Vick did isn't, nor is cocaine in either form. And the only people who seem to have not ostracized her for her actions (from my perspective) have been her base.


Minor quibble... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:53:47 PM EST

legal/illegal has no real bearing on arguments of right and wrong.


That was the point (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:10:21 PM EST

Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:30:30 PM EST

Semi-sarcasm workin' there...err, not working there, my friend:)


Well, you didn't articulate it very well (none / 0) (#47)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:14:32 PM EST

Vick and Palin can both be wrong, only one is being illegal. Both cocaine offenses are illegal and the system treats them differently. I don't see the legal comparison.


Analogies always (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:46:16 PM EST

break down the further you take them.

I wasn't trying to make a legal argument but rather a policy one.

The issue is why is what Palin does legal, and why are the cocaine penalties different?


: Can't answer that (none / 0) (#55)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:49:02 PM EST

I'll I can do is work to "change" it.

BTW, (none / 0) (#48)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:15:56 PM EST

will your civil rights work include animals?


What would you suggest? (none / 0) (#52)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:42:18 PM EST

Can one make such a 1983 claim?


Just wondering if you were (none / 0) (#54)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:46:22 PM EST

considering all innocents . . .


Look at my last diary at Big Orange (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by MKS on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:56:21 PM EST

written on Mother's Day 2008--that should answer your question.

As to the legal issue, here in California one of my first legal research assignments years ago as a first year lawyer for a large firm was to find out the remedy for someone killing the beloved cat of a CEO. Answer: the price he paid for the cat from the pet store.

Intentional Infliction of Emotions Distress--maybe worth a try.....


Ah, but it goes so much farther than (none / 0) (#67)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:38:16 PM EST

killing a CEO's cat and the price of the cat.

If you want me to read a year plus old diary, the least you could do is link it . . .


: No need (none / 0) (#70)
by MKS on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:44:11 AM EST

I wanted to respond with something that showed I was not unsympathetic towards our non-human friends--since that seemed to be your implied assertion.
It is a bit tacky, one would think, to link to one's own diary--this is not my blog. A quick search would turn it up in any event.....

Correct (none / 0) (#46)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:10:33 PM EST

but it does play in on "why was Vick in jail?" and comparing him to Palin/ cocaine offenses. 3 are illegal, one is not, to my knowledge.

And I know you hate cages, but I think Vick should have spent some time in one for the cruelty charges. What PB did was arrogant/stupid and he and everyone else there is lucky only he got shot (and it wasn't too serious). What Vick did was deliberate, sick and beyond cruel and well, just WRONG.


I don't want to spoil a good snark (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:59:50 PM EST

but shooting wolves like that has been done for years and years.


: I agree it isn't sporting (none / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:30:56 AM EST

and the practice has been around for years as means to thin the population of various animals.
My point was probably to simple for you.

Exactly Like Shooting Wolves (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:26:00 PM EST

Just like in most other cultures around the world, dogs are not valued in the same way they are her, as pets.

To spend $300 on a dog at a vet, you may as well shoot it. Unless it is a special herd dog or particularly genius hunting dog.

IOW $300. is too much to spend on a dog in 99% of the world.

Many here see shooting wolves from helicopters the same as the vast majority of people from Spain who, if their dog got sick or pregnant they would shoot it, or abandon it.

There are tons of pregnancies there. Very few of the dogs are sterilized and there are a great deal of strays.

My friend just lost two dogs to poison in Southern spain. One was a super smart black dog with pointy ears and sort of great dane goofy. He was poisoned mainly because he was all black. Many there, farmers et al, believe that black dogs are the devil and should be killed.

What Vic was doing is legal in most of the civilized world. It is culturally abhorrent to us because we love pets, and do not eat them.


Concealed handguns... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:08:26 PM EST

scare the sh*t of me actually...I'd rather ya walk around with an AK than have a glock in your waistband, at least I can see the AK and know I'm at risk.

So no I'm not ok with it, I just don't think it should be punished by 3 1/2 years in a cage...thats a far worse crime than carrying a concealed weapon to a nightclub and shooting yourself in the leg.


Ridiculous and a waste of my tax dollars (none / 0) (#5)
by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:01:24 PM EST

let alone my hopes for another Giants Superbowl win.

: You and me both. (none / 0) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:12:30 PM EST

Also one count of reckless endangerment (none / 0) (#8)
by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:07:53 PM EST

From ESPN:

Burress was at the Latin Quarter nightclub Nov. 29 when he shot himself in the thigh after a gun tucked in the waist of his track pants slipped down his leg and fired. Authorities say Pierce, who was with Burress at the club, drove his then-teammate to the hospital and took the gun to Burress' home in Totowa, N.J.
The gun was not licensed. No one called police to report the gunshot wound, as required by law: Not the players, nor NFL officials, nor the hospital where Burress was treated.

I don't know how much more reckless one could be, or much luckier he could have been that he didn't kill someone "by accident."

"Simple possession?" There's nothing simple about a loaded gun going off in a crowded nighclub, is there?

Simple-minded, absolutely.

Didn't he have a license for it (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:10:58 PM EST

in Florida? I read that somewhere. Having a license shouldn't be the determining factor. Someone with a license could endanger someone just as someone without a license. The test should be whether a third party was in fact injured or whether the person with the gun intended to cause injury to another person.


Well Wonder What (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:52:43 PM EST

Sen. John Thune has to say about this. He should be out there defending Plaxico Burress' right to carry concealed weapons across state lines. I guess he is being made an example of by Bloomberg who argued vociferously against Thunes bill.

Anyway it is absurd to put the guy in a cage for any time at all because he shot himself in the foot.

Mandatory sentencing is as stupid as it gets and this is yet another case to prove it.

And it does not matter what could have happened, it matters what did happen.


: Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:58:15 PM EST

has behaved pretty shamefully since Plaxico got arrested...sticking his nose into the case looking to make an "example" out of him...I hate that "example" sh*t.

Why? (none / 0) (#15)
by Todd on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:18:23 PM EST

Why is someone taking a loaded gun with them in public, a crowded NY club in fact, if they don't intend to use it at some point?


protection (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:02:37 PM EST

I read he had been threatened in the weeks prior to the incident. Stupid, yes. 3 years felony stupid? I don't think so, given he shot himself, trashed his reputation and possibly millions in earnings and his career. He probably gets it now, I doubt the prison time will accomplish anything but turning him into a changed and probably bitter person.


Protection... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:32:23 PM EST

is my best guess...every bar or club has the resident wanna-be tough guy picking a fight with a star athlete for 2 minutes of fame. Or people looking to jack the bling.

I agree it is stupid to carry a piece, though I seriously doubt he had any intent to use it.


He couldn't afford to hire some muscle? (none / 0) (#20)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:38:33 PM EST

Was there anyone with him besides AP?

He had started acting stupid before this event. At least he was the only one hurt (this time) . . .


Not the sharpest knife in the drawer... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:41:34 PM EST

no argument from me stray...but I ain't worried about Plaxico, I'm worried about my state and my country and how they deal with Plaxico and the rest of us when we run afoul of all the rules.


Well (none / 0) (#22)
by Steve M on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:49:05 PM EST

Yeah, traditionally the rich guy is supposed to have someone else who takes the risk of violating the law on his behalf... kinda like how Michael Vick should have had someone else to carry his stash through the airport. But theory and practice are different things.


Would a hired body guard be violating (none / 0) (#35)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:29:48 PM EST

the law if he had all his ducks in order?


: Well (none / 0) (#39)
by Steve M on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:39:42 PM EST

I guess if he were formally deputized or something. Not really sure how that works.

Some carry for self defense. (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:33:34 PM EST

Not licensed, but registered (none / 0) (#16)
by JPB on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:23:47 PM EST

The gun is registered in Florida, according to Burress, and after all this time, has yet to be refuted.

I was never able to determine whether this allowed Burress to carry in Florida.

Plaxico (none / 0) (#25)
by Mee12341 on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:04:47 PM EST

shouldn't Josyann Abisaab be indicted as well for her role in the cover up?

Jeralyn, I think you are not addressing the issue. (none / 0) (#29)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:47:06 PM EST

This man was carrying a loaded gun in a club full of loaded (drinking) people. I am not sure of his condition, but if he got shot with his own gun, I would assume that he was under some kind of influence, if not of alcohol then of some other substance, or at least stupidity.

But if he could do this legally, or with only the possibility of a fine which he, as a very rich man, could easily pay just like a parking ticket, then you are perhaps allowing everyone in the club to carry a loaded gun.

Do you see the danger?

Sure I see the danger (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:09 PM EST

It's stupid and it should be illegal. But to require a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence in prison regardless of circumstances? It's the mandatory sentence (and its length)I object to.


Isn't that how it is... (none / 0) (#31)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:11:52 PM EST

in conceal and carry states? You could well walk into a bar or nighclub where everybody is packing heat?

I don't like it anymore than you, it is dangerous.

But I like human beings in cages for 40 months for shooting themselves even less...do you see the inhumanity in that? The insanity even?


Is that why they say (none / 0) (#34)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:28:24 PM EST

"Don't mess with Texas"?

I think that was one thing that really bothered me about this. Packing guns in public places like bars (restaurants?!) and the dangerous stoopid factor involved. Of course, over the holidays there was that ToysR'Us shooting. Two fools go to a toy store with guns. Who takes guns to a toy store?!

I do think his sentence is too long, but getting punished for his actions I don't have a prob with. Paying fines didn't seem to bother him, so the alternative is?


Community Service? (none / 0) (#40)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:44:26 PM EST

No cages and something gets accomplished.

Don't get me wrong, I have some indentured servitude issues with community service (sh*t, I have issues with fines:), but I know I'll take trash duty over a cage everyday of the week.

Come to think of it though, in this case, Plax was punished via a gunshot to the leg (thats gotta hurt) and getting fined by the league and cut by the G-Men...thats some serious punishment without John Law lifting a finger.


Fined by the league? (none / 0) (#44)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:57:40 PM EST

How does that differ than by John Law? ;) And like I said, that didn't seem to bother him. Did the Giants cut him right away, or did they wait to see what the law was going/likely to do? Can't remember, but in past instances, fines and suspensions aren't always effective and the number of players that actually get cut seems low. I'd like to see more teams fire these guys and other teams less likely to pick them up until they've acted like an adult for awhile.

I actually had that a** on one of my teams, lol!~ Still brought in the championship without him ;)


Major difference... (none / 0) (#49)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:26:47 PM EST

the league can't fine me or you pal:)

I can't say I'd like to see the same in regards to pro sports either...its not a good citizenship competition. Besides, if Plax gets outta this jam I'll take him on the Jets...he's a knucklehead, but a knucklehead who can ball, and we're thin at receiver!...:)


Lol!~ True, they* just fire our (none / 0) (#51)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:38:01 PM EST

a**es.

*our employers

We're thin on receivers?! I'm so not in football brain! One thing I do know though, full boycott on any team that picks up Vick. (yeah, I know you prob don't agree, but this is personal!) Plax, not so much. But if I see Plax in track pants, I'm keeping my distance!


Monica... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:00:39 PM EST

coulda been my dog growing up Hobie's sister! A shepherd mutt?

I know where you're coming from, believe me, I mean no offense to my four legged friends.

I'll forever be more concerned with the people in grey than any former member of Big Blue...only one can say "come with me" and I have to go:)


She was/is a very special pup (none / 0) (#66)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:32 PM EST

she stood out from the whole litter. Was the last to be adopted, which was a good thing. She needed someone who understood and could handle her smarts. Lovely pup and def a shep mutt. And a lil' pistol! ;)


: "Otherend". I love that second (none / 0) (#71)
by vml68 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:29:47 AM EST

to last picture...that is just begging for some belly kisses!

"Don't mess with Texas" (none / 0) (#62)
by Rojas on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:32:51 PM EST

is an anti-litter slogan. In other words, "pickup your brass".


TN (I think) says that you can go into (none / 0) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:11:44 PM EST

a bar with a concealed weapon IF you have a valid TN license... should lead to some interesting Saturday nights at the various ER's.

That's probably the issue. No NY license..

Looks like he should hope for a jury of NYG fans and plead stupid..

Like I said a stiff fine and probation given that he wasn't there to do anything but have a good time..and yeah I know the argument that he could have shot someone else, but he didn't.


Ok, then Jeralyn, what do you think the penalty (none / 0) (#68)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:05:57 PM EST

should be?

As for carrying a concealed (with permit) weapon into a bar, the States that have concealed carry laws differ. There has been a movement toward getting States to allow that. TN was one, but I thought it had been vetoed. Also Kansas. Seems like there were 4 last I heard.

Sometimes some places you can carry an exposed (not concealed) gun where you can't carry a concealed gun.

(Yes, I do have a concealed carry license and I am always worried about making a mistake and taking it onto a plane. I am afraid that one day you might read about me.)

Now usually any bar, or other public establishment can put up a sign to prevent a concealed carry.

But one thing that is a little ridiculous is that most of the laws where you can carry the gun into the bar say that you shouldn't be drinking while carrying the gun, and then they seek to protect the bar from suits if the gun is misused.

And I do agree that there should not be a national concealed carry law where someone could get a license in Texas that would be good in NY.

Also I know that many of my fellow gun buddies say why not allow them to carry a gun everywhere, in schools, banks, bars, and on planes. They say they have been background checked to see if they are felons, fingerprinted, trained and tested in their skill and their safety practices.
I say for them that at one time every felon in the country had a clean record.

I also say to them that if a child obtains their gun and misuses it even to shoot themselves, that the owner should be charged as an accomplice unless the kid used a torch to open the gun safe. You should hear the claims and protests about their lack of responsibility from the very people who were previously claiming they were responsible enough for concealed carry permits in the first place.

One other thing, if Plaxico had not shot himself but his gun had been seen, then he might have been shot down by 4 or 5 cops as he left the joint. The guy is too stupid to be out of jail.

: In this case (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:34:58 AM EST

given the price he's already paid (loss to reputation, probably won't get corporations to hire him to sponsor products, physical injury to himself, humilitation, legal fees) I'd say he's been shamed enough. Best punishment would be community service warning kids about carrying guns, telling his own story and what it cost him.
He's unlikely to be a repeat offender, society is not going to be endangered by him again, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to incarcerate him.
The key is the judge should have discretion to sentence him based on the facts of the case and his individual history. Alternatives to prison should be available.

: The TN veto was over riden (none / 0) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:42:57 AM EST