The “Unconstitutional” Angle to Mandatory Minimums in Regard to the Plaxico Burress Shooting
Courts, Legal, Guns, NFL December 5th. 2008, 9:00am
Considering how outraged most of you were a couple of days ago when we cobbled together some thoughts on a defense for Plaxico Burress, we’re curious how you’ll react to this pro-Plaxico editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Burress’s behavior was bad. However, Mr. Burress is not facing prosecution for carelessness, but simply for carrying a weapon. This is unjust and perhaps unconstitutional.
In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City’s licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.
While much of the criticism has shifted from Burress to the Giants, the NFL, and the hospital, our focus remains on Burress, because he’s the one on the hook for possibly 3.5 years in the clink. Speaking of that mandatory minimum, are those even a good idea?
The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea. He was careless but had no malign intent. Legislators and mayors like to appear tough by pushing through such draconian laws. Yet the victims are people like Mr. Burress whose conduct may have been improper, but who do not deserve the same sentences meted out to robbers and burglars.
We’ll leave you with one last thought. The rapper TI was on Howard Stern yesterday. A couple years back, TI – a convicted felon – was busted trying to buy weapons from undercover feds. All signs pointed to serious jail time. Thanks to a creative lawyer and his plans to parlay TI’s fame into preventing crime (teaching young kids about the perils of weapons, drugs, etc), he’s only going to do one year.
Why wouldn’t Plaxico’s lawyer also argue that his client is famous and a Super Bowl champion and he can go speak to New York-area schools about how guns and dangerous and get a year or two shaved off his punishment?
Free Plaxico Burress (Wall Street Journal via Deadspin)
58 Responses to “The “Unconstitutional” Angle to Mandatory Minimums in Regard to the Plaxico Burress Shooting”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:04 AM
/benji’d
December 5th, 2008 at 9:05 AM
/stigs’d
December 5th, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Isnt Plax a celebrity? Wouldnt it have been easy for him to get a permit? Why am I supposed to feel sorry for him again?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:06 AM
How many years would he get if he wasn’t yet another thug on the Flukeball Giants that was carrying a gun? None?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:07 AM
I suppose this writer also thinks it is unconstitutional to require permits. He also probably is against Jessica’s Law, which defines mandatory sentences for child killers/attackers.
Can’t take anything seriously from somebody that makes these kinds of statements.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:08 AM
who is stigs?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:10 AM
@sparty – He’s the guy Burress bought the gun from. Don’t worry.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:10 AM
so Plaxico is only a victim of his own willingness to break the law and commit a crime?
so we really shouldn’t have laws at all, is what this guy is saying.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Who is John Galt?
/obscure intellectual burn!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Where is the defense for OJ anyway? Isn’t he getting a lot of jail time mostly for bringing a gun with him? FREE OJ!! Unconstitutional!!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:11 AM
also, Mayor Bloomberg is a ass-clown. not to be confused with this clown.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:11 AM
depends – why was he carrying a gun? was one of his i-banker buddies just robbed, so he felt the need for protection? did he have any prior felonies/shootings/robberies?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
WWCWD
December 5th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Wow, even the WSJ agrees with me.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
you left part of it off, sparty.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
i think plax should get the book thrown at him, but mandatory minimums are a fucking joke
December 5th, 2008 at 9:14 AM
But you weren’t arguing it was unconstitional before, TBL. you argued that he didn’t mean to do anything wrong, therefore he shouldn’t be punished.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:16 AM
John Galt is the heroic main character in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel’s oft repeated question, “Who is John Galt?”, and the quest to discover the answer.
As the story is revealed, Galt is discovered to be a creator and inventor who embodies the power of the individual. He serves as a counterpoint to the social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. He is a metaphorical Atlas of greek mythology, holding up the world and namesake for the title Atlas Shrugged.
An engineer by trade, Galt’s actions include withdrawing his talents, “stopping the motor of the world,” and leading the “strikers” (in this case the captains of industry) against the “looters” (in this case the mob rule of strikers and the common man). The storyline unfolds by exploring rumors and legends about the identity of the Galt. The Galt’s actual identity is learned only after a prolonged search by Dagny Taggart, the female heroine of the story, with whom Galt has a romantic relationship. Galt is also referred to in the story as the Mystery Worker.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Brafman will work some magic, he won’t do 3 1/2.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
mandatory minimums would be a good deterent if people actually paid attention to the law. asking someone married to a lawyer to find out the laws surrounding carrying a concealed loaded weapon in NYC must be too much to ask then.
I’m sure if he found out he could be sentenced for at least 3.5 years, he might have thought about tucking a gun into his waistband.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I dont know about that..
December 5th, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Thanks for the spoiler alert, CRM!
A spoiler is anything in a fanfiction or email which gives away parts of episodes or movies. A spoiler warning is generally used when releasing information about books or movies that some people may have yet read or seen.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I’m still shocked that Plax is married to a lawyer and not Bubbles the stripper.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:23 AM
When keeping it real goes wrong.
Which is worse, getting robbed of some bling or doing 3.5?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:24 AM
NYC’s gun laws are unconstitutional when you consider the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (when they overturned the D.C. gun ban) and the fact that in NYC nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun.
Also, there is the simple fact that gun bans only increase violent crime…
December 5th, 2008 at 9:25 AM
don’t you know that diamonds are forever, coop?
forever > 3.5
December 5th, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Constitutionality is the status of a law, a procedure, or an act’s accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. An act (or statute) which is enacted as law either by the council of a city or county, by the legislature of a state or province, or by a national legislature, may be declared unconstitutional. When the proper court determines that the act in question conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:28 AM
People askin’ me if I’m gon’ give my chain back
That’ll be the same day I give the game back
December 5th, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Sprort Hernia -
She put herself through law school by stripping.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Athletic pubalgia, also called the sportman’s hernia or sports hernia, Gilmore’s groin or groin disruption, is a medical condition of the groin affecting athletes.[1] Jerry Gilmore recognized the syndrome in 1980 and developed a surgical repair technique. It is a syndrome characterized by chronic groin pain in athletes and a dilated superficial ring of the inguinal canal. Soccer and Ice Hockey players are affected most frequently, and both recreational and professional athletes may be affected. A hernia cannot be found on physical examination or medical imaging, and is not revealed during surgery. The term hernia thus is a misnomer,[2] but has persisted, as surgical reconstructions similar to those performed for inguinal hernias are often effective for “sports hernias” as well.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:32 AM
One thing people keep bringing up is that his wife is a lawyer so he should of known or at least respected the law. You all are giving lawyers way too much credit. Most of them are just paper pushers and not Perry Mason.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
@Chelsea Chris,
Wrong. Jessica’s Law is a an issue championed by conservatives. Opponents to Jessica’s Law are liberals who believe in restorative justice. Being that defending the 2nd amendment is also favored by conservatives, your statement is false.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Perry Mason is a fictional character, a defense attorney who originally was the main character in numerous pieces of detective fiction authored by Erle Stanley Gardner. Perry Mason was featured in over 80 novels and short stories, most of which had a story line which involved a client of his being put on trial for murder. Typically, Mason was able to establish his client’s innocence by demonstrating the guilt of another character.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
mandatory minimum > slap on the wrist
December 5th, 2008 at 9:34 AM
You all are giving lawyers way too much credit.
Seriously his wife is Bubbles the striping lawyer
December 5th, 2008 at 9:35 AM
sick juris doctor burn!!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Jessica’s Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, as well as laws in several other states, designed to punish sex offenders and reduce their ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica’s Law has been introduced on the federal level, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act.
The name is also used by the media to designate all legislation and potential legislation in other states modeled after the Florida law. Forty-two states have introduced such legislation since Florida’s law was passed.[1]
The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison[2] and lifetime electronic monitoring[3] of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is punishable only by life imprisonment with no chance of parole.[4]
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:35 AM
i never said he ’shouldn’t be punished.’ i said the 3.5 yrs is harsh. i think 6 months or a year is suffice. that’s my humble opinion.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:37 AM
solid prediction, as usual.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Mandatory minimum sentences are a knee jerk reaction to “fix” a problem, and too harsh. Problem is, the constitutionality of the the sentences have been fought over in federal and in front of the Supreme court and have been found constitutional. Only way to fix it is to fight to have the law changed.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
It’s fun to see PurdueMatt get worked up about something and call someone else wrong. It’s like the pot finally getting back at the kettle for all those years of abuse.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Purdue – the writer makes the statement “The Burress case also shows why mandatory sentences are a bad idea.”. This is why I meade the short leap to assume he would be against Jessica’s Law. I know what it is and I know who champions it. I support this law fully and, in fact, spoke with my state representative about pushing this legislation in Michigan.
My statement was not false, it was my opinion which by definition is neither true nor false.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:56 AM
An opinion is a person’s ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person. It is an assertion about something especially if that something lies in the future and its truth or falsity cannot be directly established e.g. induction. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact.
/jmorris
December 5th, 2008 at 9:57 AM
My Lord, why does this have to be a conservative/liberal thing? Cant we just be people discussing an issue?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Crackerjack, it’s a ploy used to create sides where none exist. This debate, you’ll notice, has split commenters not by political affiliation, but along an actual issue divide. It’s been fun to read.
/I don’t care enough about guns to comment
//And PurdueMatt is a simpleton
December 5th, 2008 at 10:02 AM
cracker – i agree, but some people look at every issue through the prism of “should i support this” or “do other conservatives/liberals support this”, instead of “does this make sense” or “what is the right thing to believe”. IMHO, i do not see any reason anybody should ever be against Jessica’s Law.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:08 AM
WWRLD?
What would Rush Limbaugh do?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Rush would spout hatred like he always does.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
WWM06D? is the filter with which I consider my opinions.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
My problem with the mandatory minimum is that it only works as a deterrent by f-ing someone like Plaxico over and using him as an example. It’s not as though there are billboards up alerting everyone in Manhattan that if you carry a gun that is the penalty.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Tyduff-But his wife is a lawyer!
December 5th, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that NY recently enacted tougher gun laws after the P-Diddy trial.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Cracker- Not everyone watches MTV News.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It probably confused everyone because he doesn’t go by P-Diddy anymore. It’s hard to make an example of someone who keeps changing their name.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Are we still talking about this? Really? Can we all agree that if we were all facing 3.5 for this we would be thinking it’s to harsh? He should be punished, but 3.5 for carrying, when intent was defense, not robbery? I get that the law is the law, but in this case it should be reviewed and rewritten.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:36 AM
doing prison time is supposed to be about more than just ‘being a deterrant’. it is also about punishment for breaking the law.
i do not have a problem with minimums because it takes judges opinions or their like for a defendant out of the picture. i would not trust a NY judge with a Giants pencil holder on his bench with making an impartial decision. or one with a Jets flag, for that matter.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:23 AM
great system we got in ny. let all the criminals carry guns but keep them out of the hands of taxpayers who have constitutional rights to guns
December 5th, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Plax: Sorry officer, I know I was speeding, but I was late. Sure it’s illegal, but I really wanted to do it.
Officer: Now you get a ticket.
Plax: What, a ticket. That is ridiculous.
Officer: Well, you broke the law. That is what happens.
Plax: But I usually don’t speed in Florida. Sure I tend to speed in NJ and NY, but I usually don’t get caught. This is unconstitutional, how can you mandate a penalty.
Officer: Too bad, you broke the law.