Beaux Nehr
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 460
With the recent spike in concealed handgun licenses, I think this is going to happen a lot more often.
NYC arrests CCWing nurse from TN
- Thread starter crracer_712
- Start date
- Status
JRH6856
Member
According to news reports, both the nurse and the ex Marine first approached security guards who then called police. The police arrived in response to the guards' calls and made the arrests. Security guards, generally, are not police officers. Voluntary surrender may not apply.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Absolutely prosecutors can decide not to prosecute a person because of who they are. There are separate laws against not prosecuting people in exchange for money, or only prosecuting a certain ethnic group, but if a prosecutor gets caught doing it, that doesn't mean that nobody else can be charged for crimes that went unprosecuted. At the far end of the spectrum, it is theoretically possible to prove that prosecutorial discretion is so systematically discriminatory that it constitutes a denial of due process, or that the charge against you is actually motivated by discriminatory animus... but criminal defendants argue that stuff all the time to no avail. A single non-pros of this woman for reasons that a judge will readily understand raises essentially no risk of influencing the cases of other defendants.
I'll put it this way: If the rule was that any crime that had been non-prosecuted on a purely discretionary basis could no longer be charged, every drug would be legal.
Now, there are all kinds of practical constraints on discretion, including politics, the actual DA or AG who may feel less generous, credibility with the courts, media coverage, etc. But fear that their gun law will become unenforceable over a single instance of prosecutorial discretion? Not a constraint. Not a rational one, anyway.
Last edited:
MagnumDweeb
Member
I have to ask, how did they think they could go to New York city with lawfully owned guns, with no ill-intention, and not get in trouble. I don't think the folks should get in trouble but come on...
New York, California, D.C., Maryland, Massachussetts, equals bad for 2nd Amendment folks. I thought this was the popular culture as everyone understood it. Before I even became a gun owner I knew those places were bad for folks who owned guns, and good for those people who were career criminals.
I know I'll step in side of the before mentioned anti zones till nation-wide reciprocity is established, as such I'll likely never step inside of those anti zones.
New York, California, D.C., Maryland, Massachussetts, equals bad for 2nd Amendment folks. I thought this was the popular culture as everyone understood it. Before I even became a gun owner I knew those places were bad for folks who owned guns, and good for those people who were career criminals.
I know I'll step in side of the before mentioned anti zones till nation-wide reciprocity is established, as such I'll likely never step inside of those anti zones.
Loosedhorse
member
Well, a very helpful post until you decided to consider me irrantional! I guess none of us can help our personalities, eh? Though some choose to control them.
Hey: maybe you have statistics on how many gun-carry (worse than gun possession) charges are "non-prossed" each year in NYC: defendent walks away with no "lesser" felony, no deal to testify against another: just dropped. And maybe you have data on the ethnic and financial profiles of those folks. And maybe you have data on the folks who did end up charged and sentenced, or convicted of something else, or with deals to testify; and their profiles. And the two groups are the same.
You mentioned "systematically," you mentioned politics. Perhaps you know of no minority NYC politicians/prominent figures that would look at the dropping of all charges against two white gun carriers, after the high-profile convicting and jailing of a black celebrity a while ago, and see no opportunity there. Perhaps you don't believe any such figures could add to the considerations there how many of the defendents who don't have all charges dropped are minorities. And perhaps you believe that, if that generated a thorough review of "the system", there would be no grounds for arguing discrimmination.
And perhaps you believe that a NYC DA is non-political enough to risk that. Well, that would be a belief...maybe even a rational one!
cor_man257
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 105
Hopefully these cases can change something. Im from Upstate New York, and I cant stand the city. Or its gun laws.
I think both the nurse and the Marine should have known the laws. But I understand why they didn't. Take a look through some laws and try to figure out what they mean. Im not a lawyer, and neither are these people. I think its completely reasonable that the nurse could have assumed her CCW was legal out of state, with only slightly different rules. Much like driving. And assuming so isnt ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is that our laws for CCW do not function that way.
I think both the nurse and the Marine should have known the laws. But I understand why they didn't. Take a look through some laws and try to figure out what they mean. Im not a lawyer, and neither are these people. I think its completely reasonable that the nurse could have assumed her CCW was legal out of state, with only slightly different rules. Much like driving. And assuming so isnt ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is that our laws for CCW do not function that way.
No, she cannot.
No hospital or doctor will recognize her out of state license.
She cannot sign a chart, do anything in a hospital, etc.
She has no more right to practice nursing on members of her family out of state than any other unlicensed person.
She can put a band aid on a scratch, but that is not a licensed activity anyway if it is outside a hospital (and she is not being paid).
And you have this odd view of what 'full faith and credit' covers.
Here is the text to remind you:
A carry permit is not a "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings."
It is a license, issued by a state (or sub-municipality in some cases).
It may be recognized in other states by agreement between the states involved, just like your driver's license (and that is also not a full faith and credit document).
Your marriage certificate is, your divorce certificate is, and your child custody order is.
Licenses & permits are NOT.
Your marriage license is not valid in another state, though once the marriage is performed the marriage becomes a judicial item that is recognized, though you will note that 'same sex' marriages are NOT recognized under FF&C by all states.
Some states have simply refused to recognize these marriages, and you are invited to sue the state if you want (though I seem to remember a federal bill that allowed states to refuse to recognize them).
You are not being denied your right to
You are being denied a particular tool for that defense.
You are free to use a baseball bat, or any one of a number of other legal weapons.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Nothing like Bloomburg killing Southern Tourism to his fine city. I am sure I will never see the City of NY City Limit sign since I refuse to have my rights infringed just to visit.
budiceman
Member
If I was a criminal, I know what 3 countries I would want to live in. NY, CA, IL., It would make the job of robbery, rape, and murder a lot safer
NavyLCDR
member
budiceman said:
That was EXACTLY the reason why Big Tim Sullivan, New York Senator, enacted the nation's first pistol permit legislation in New York in 1911:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Sullivan
1stmarine
Member
I guess it is time to start lifting the wall of berlin around NYC.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Since when did New York City show any respect for the laws of New York State? NYC is kingdom unto itself.
And another one gets bit by the Big Apple.....
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20111204/NEWS/312040021/USF-president-gets-N-Y-jail-time
John Hult, "USF president gets N.Y. jail time: Unloaded handgun incident at airport called misunderstanding", ''Argus Leader'', 3 Dec 2011.
CollinLeon
member
Yep, plenty of unconstitutional infringement of 2nd Amendment rights has been done over the years... The funny thing is, it's easy to get a firearm INTO NYC, but a bit more difficult to get it OUT of the city if you do like you are *supposed* to do and declare it in your checked baggage. You would think that as anti-2nd-Amendment they are, they would be *glad* that you were taking a firearm OUT OF NYC...
A lot less trouble to just disassemble the firearm and ship it back to your home via UPS right before you flight...
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Loosed', I wasn't calling you irrational. (FWIW, you always come across as pretty rational and sane to me.) I was addressing only the concern/fear that, by discretionarily not prosecuting a single case, the prosecutor's office would effectively lose the ability to prosecute any case on the same charge going forward over equal protection or due process complaints. As I explained, that's not really an issue.
On the other hand, the other things that you listed (such as the political constraints), and that I mentioned in as a contrast to the narrow point I was addressing, are real concerns. I am not saying that the DA will non-pross this case, nor that there would be no consequences for them if they did. Just not the particular issue raised early - i.e., effective immunization of all others charged under the same statute. Letting concern over that single issue control the decision about whether to prosecute, that's what would be irrational.
Make sense?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Prosecutors (outside NYC) decide not to prosecute meritless cases every day. That does not immunize other cases on the same law if those cases do hold water.
Reading the comments posted to some of the newspaper articles, while there are a lot folks with "the law is the law" attitude, there are others who give their address within NYC who recognize that the publicized intent of the law (preventing violent gun crime by violent criminals) is not served by prosecuting a nurse, a marine or a university professor for voluntarily declaring they were carrying or transporting a firearm in a manner that is legal in most of the rest of the US (carry with a current valid state permit, or transport of unloaded, locked gun in declared luggage).
To me it is strange that you are allowed to declare an unloaded locked firearm in luggage on a flight into NYC w/o warning, but when you declare it on the flight out, they sic the NYPD on you. What's with that?
Reading the comments posted to some of the newspaper articles, while there are a lot folks with "the law is the law" attitude, there are others who give their address within NYC who recognize that the publicized intent of the law (preventing violent gun crime by violent criminals) is not served by prosecuting a nurse, a marine or a university professor for voluntarily declaring they were carrying or transporting a firearm in a manner that is legal in most of the rest of the US (carry with a current valid state permit, or transport of unloaded, locked gun in declared luggage).
To me it is strange that you are allowed to declare an unloaded locked firearm in luggage on a flight into NYC w/o warning, but when you declare it on the flight out, they sic the NYPD on you. What's with that?
Last edited:
GambJoe
Member
I am a Texas resident who works in Tennesse with no carry permit but I keep a firearm in my apartment there. I really don't know Tennesse law's well enough to know if I'm not breaking any laws. I just assume I'm not.
CollinLeon
member
Howdy, neighbor... I'm right across the Brazos from you...
There are plenty of people in NYC that have firearms for protection, regardless of what the leftist unconstitutional "laws" might be... Their philosophy is that it's only illegal if you get caught and it's better to be in prison than dead... I suspect that if a person is not involved in some sort of illegal endeavor that is going to draw the attention of the police, they are safe enough... Don't drink and drive... Don't get into disturbances with your neighbors or at bars... Don't use drugs or associate with those who do or frequent places where they do... Don't drive around looking for prostitutes... Basically common sense types of things...
http://www.gunlawguide.com/Tennessee.htm
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/tennessee.pdf
From what I can tell, it appears that there is no requirement in Tennessee to have a permit to own a firearm if you keep it at home... They appear to be a bit more restrictive than Texas with respect to carrying one in a vehicle if you do not have their "Handgun Carry Permit", but if you do have it, they allow you to carry either concealed or open...
Loosedhorse
member
Yes. Thanks for the help.
1stmarine
Member
Major "midget" Bloomberg is building his own version of the apartheid right in the heart of america. Ashamed we all should be for allowing these type of things. Brainwashing and indoctrination, that is what they are doing. And in the middle of all this the supreme court doing their nails.
bushmaster1313
Member
This is on the Internet but I have no idea if it is accurate:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_tn.htm
CollinLeon
member
According to that link, you have to provide a thumb print to purchase a firearm... As a general principle, I do not like that... Not that it matters for me since the government has taken my fingerprints NUMEROUS times (security clearances, access to DoD facilities, CHL, etc), but if I had somehow managed to go all these years without getting my fingerprints taken, I do not think that I should have to give even one fingerprint just so I can buy a firearm. Then again, I think that you should just be able to walk into any sporting goods store, grab a firearm off the shelf, and take it to the front counter, just like buying any other sort of sporting goods... NFA34 and GCA68 are totally unconstitutional since they obviously violate the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause of the 2nd Amendment.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I called my local FFL and the thumbprint is no longer required: they had taken millions over the years, only referenced them twice, and even then it was not critical, so TN did away with it a couple of years ago.
We no longer have CLEO sign-off on application for permission to purchase handgun either: the whole Tennessee handgun permit (with max. 15 day waiting period) was done away with when the federal Brady Act was passed. Thanx to Jim and Sarah!
We no longer have CLEO sign-off on application for permission to purchase handgun either: the whole Tennessee handgun permit (with max. 15 day waiting period) was done away with when the federal Brady Act was passed. Thanx to Jim and Sarah!
mitchell11
Member
I think if you have a permit in your state you should not be thrown in jail for alerting a cop that you made a misteak trying to being a good citizen you see this thing they call the best policey is old school if you forget you have your weapon in your holster or purse dont tell anybody until they are ready to or have to search you the penalty is the same.
- Status