MARINE refuses plea deal - Gun possession in NYC

[BAL]

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/15/m ... sion-case/

Here is a short article about a Marine carrying in New York. I read it this morning and wondered what everyone thought. I have my thoughts and will add later.

[Monocrom]

Once again, the New York D.A. shows his true colors of being little more than an extortionist in a civil servant's costume. The $1,000 fine is the only thing he cares about, and sees nothing wrong with giving an honorable Marine a criminal record in exchange for it. I didn't know that a criminal record was that expensive. Most folks can get one without paying $1,000 for it. Only in NYC . . .

[The Deacon]

Man is not a Marine, he's a former Marine, big difference. IMHO, he's also an idiot for carrying a handgun anywhere in New York state, a bigger idiot for carrying it into a building in NYC know to have an above average level of security, an even bigger one for refusing the plea deal, and something worse for wrapping himself in the flag after getting caught. He may not like the law, and I'm not saying the law is good or reasonable or just, but it's been on the books for over 100 years.

[BAL]

I might as well go ahead and chime in. As much as I hate to say it, I believe that he is in the wrong.
The law is the law and he should have known better.
As an example, the wife, boy and I were passing through St. Louis a couple years ago on vacation
and were in line for the Gateway Arch. It was a long line and we had been there for a while when I
noticed the "no weapons" sign and I had a Glock 26 and Spyderco Military on me. I knew that it
would cost time waiting in the line and it was about 110 degrees that July day, and the car was
over a mile from the arch. However, I tied my shoe strings a little tighter and started the long jog
back to the car.

With great power comes great responsibliity.

[NYRich]

As a lifelong resident of New York City I, like many other freedom-loving residents, hold the current Manhattan D.A. in total contempt. He has acted more like a schoolyard bully and blackmailer than someone elected and sworn to protect the rights the citizens of New York County by prosecuting lawbreakers. I could go on and on about this guy, but will stick to the case in point.

This former Marine is a complete jackass. While I don't in any way agree with the policies of the D.A.'s office, anyone not living under a rock knows that this city is decidedly not gun/knife friendly. Many of us served in the military but still have enough common sense to know that having done so does not give one the right to carry a handgun in this liberal spawning ground without being properly licensed to do so.

His refusal to accept a plea not only compounded the problem for himself, but his entire course of action makes it easier for the anti-gun/knife advocates to further attack our Constitutional rights.

[Jordan]

Responsible gun owners and CHL holders have a clear responsibility to both know and adhere to the law... most of us do this better than the bulk of the non-carrying populace. This marine (no such thing as a former marine :p ) isn't doing us any favors.

[2cha]

I also agree that he is in the wrong. His prior military service is immaterial.

On the other hand, the scope of the 2nd A and related rights, particularly the right to travel, and whatever rights a reinvigorated Privileges and Immunities clause might confer, must be litigated in order for clarity to develop. I'm not willing to risk several years imprisoned in order to get that clarity, but I'm glad someone is. I hope the Libertarians and NRA represent him and I hope they do it well.

[The Deacon]

This marine (no such thing as a former marine :p ) isn't doing us any favors.

Perhaps, in the eyes of others who have served in the marines. However, even at the federal level, there are things an active duty member of any US military service can legally do which someone who has served in the past cannot.

[NYRich]

I also agree that he is in the wrong. His prior military service is immaterial.

On the other hand, the scope of the 2nd A and related rights, particularly the right to travel, and whatever rights a reinvigorated Privileges and Immunities clause might confer, must be litigated in order for clarity to develop. I'm not willing to risk several years imprisoned in order to get that clarity, but I'm glad someone is. I hope the Libertarians and NRA represent him and I hope they do it well.

Not too many of us are willing to risk imprisonment. I'm certainly not. I will not own a handgun as long as I live here as I simply refuse to pay extortion to obtain the necessary permit. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the costs of registering a handgun in NYC, but the paperwork involved runs close to $1,000. This assumes that some bureaucrat doesn't reject your application "just because", requiring re-application.

I agree with the need for change via litigation. Yet, something like this would more than likely involve a Supreme Court decision. Right now, there's a slight chance of a favorable outcome. Give Obama one more opportunity to stack the deck and any hope of a favorable outcome goes up in smoke. I've been an NRA member for years and they have accomplished much, but nobody can beat the dealer in a fixed game. The NRA's recent "This card beats Obama" campaign is striking a chord with a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't become members.

[2cha]

Give Obama one more opportunity to stack the deck and any hope of a favorable outcome goes up in smoke. I've been an NRA member for years and they have accomplished much, but nobody can beat the dealer in a fixed game. The NRA's recent "This card beats Obama" campaign is striking a chord with a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't become members.

Kinda crossing the "no politics" rule. But I don't think that anyone can predict what current or future Supreme Court Justices might do now that the individual right to bear arms has been conferred and that the right has been incorporated against the states. After all, the 2 leading left-leaning constitutional scholars in the United States. Laurence Tribe and Akhil Amar both supported a fairly expansive view of the 2nd A., and that was before the Supreme Court determined that the right is individual and that the right is superior to states' police powers.

As a final note, in terms of raw numbers anyway, the last 3 years have seen more federal pro-gun or pro industry legislation signed into law than in any other time (though, of course, The Firearm Owner's Protection Act was the broadest pro-gun federal law).

As for the NRA, I'm a reluctant member. There are probably crumbles of truth in NRA publications, but I don't even trust their gun reviews, much less anything else.

[NYRich]

Kinda crossing the "no politics" rule. But I don't think that anyone can predict what current or future Supreme Court Justices might do now that the individual right to bear arms has been conferred and that the right has been incorporated against the states. After all, the 2 leading left-leaning constitutional scholars in the United States. Laurence Tribe and Akhil Amar both supported a fairly expansive view of the 2nd A., and that was before the Supreme Court determined that the right is individual and that the right is superior to states' police powers.

As a final note, in terms of raw numbers anyway, the last 3 years have seen more federal pro-gun or pro industry legislation signed into law than in any other time (though, of course, The Firearm Owner's Protection Act was the broadest pro-gun federal law).

As for the NRA, I'm a reluctant member. There are probably crumbles of truth in NRA publications, but I don't even trust their gun reviews, much less anything else.

Yeah, it does cross the political line, but at heart it's really a political issue here. I have no desire to see NYC become a 21st century version of Dodge City, but when politicians with 24/7 protection from the NYPD deny me the right to protect my family, my feathers tend to become ruffled.

My crystal ball doesn't work any better than the next guy's. I never thought that the Supremes would approve SuperPACs, but they seem to be causing quite an uproar this year and could very well lead to unintended consequences . I don't want to bend the rules about politics more than I have already, so I won't take this further

That the NRA has it's own agenda goes without saying. I agree with some of their ideas, but not all of them by any means. As for their gun reviews, I'll take your word for it until I can legally own one without having to sell a kidney to pay for the paperwork. :D

[The Deacon]

Just to be clear, although I totally agree that Vance is reprehensible, the truth is that what Mr. Jerome did would be a felony anywhere in New York State.

[Blerv]

I agree. This guy regardless of his noble past service, was a total fool.

He made a huge legal mistake in carrying the weapon and a bigger one entering the Empire State Building with it. Seriously, I'm a dumb punk and put anything they could treat as a "weapon" in my glove compartment prior to leaving the car. I don't even take a knife into the DMV and that's the scariest place on the planet. :p

As noted by Jordan the biggest problem with the case is that it makes every other responsible gun-owner look bad. This is how blanket laws are constructed.

[Donut]

There is one thing taking a gun with you to transport $15,000 of jewelry.

Another thing is, after transporting that jewelry then stopping by the Empire State building. Now, the signs say, "All Weapons must be checked in." He told them he was carrying, and was doing as instructed to check it in.

The way I see it, no one is allowed to carry a gun in New York, so how does someone get a gun from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire?

Eh, I guess this could be easily avoided by being aware.

[phillipsted]

I fall into the "dude is an idiot" camp. The law is the law. You have the responsibility to know the law and adhere to the law, especially if you are carrying.

I also believe there is a time and place for civil disobedience - but this wasn't it.

TedP

[Slash]

If he's smart he'll take the deal. Because if/when found guilty on the felony he won't be able to legally own a handgun in any state.

[BAL]

What I hate about it most is that it gives the Anti-gun crowd more ammunition, so to speak.

[BAL]

If he's smart he'll take the deal. Because if/when found guilty on the felony he won't be able to legally own a handgun in any state.

I think that he left his smart pill back in his car....., where he should have left his gun.
There is a time and place to make a stand and this isn't one of them, especially when
you are in the wrong.

[Blerv]

There is one thing taking a gun with you to transport $15,000 of jewelry.

Another thing is, after transporting that jewelry then stopping by the Empire State building. Now, the signs say, "All Weapons must be checked in." He told them he was carrying, and was doing as instructed to check it in.

The way I see it, no one is allowed to carry a gun in New York, so how does someone get a gun from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire?

Eh, I guess this could be easily avoided by being aware.

As a jewelry dealer one would think he would have a better way to transport it. It sure wouldn't include (in my mind) breaking the law and entering a building that would likely have metal detectors.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Just to be clear, although I totally agree that Vance is reprehensible, the truth is that what Mr. Jerome did would be a felony anywhere in New York State.

1+...........Laws are Laws...Don't break em...work to change em if your not liking em....Doc :)