This is unbelievable,,,
- Thread starter aarondhgraham
- Start date
- Status
New Yorkers have made their choices, and they keep re-electing anti-gun polititians. I grew up there and much of my extended family still lives in NYC or the surrounding suburbs, and ALL of them think of me as the "crazy uncle" who owns guns. The best we can do is vote with our dollars, and other than flying to NY every few months to visit my 97 year old mother who is in a nursing home, I don't go to or spend a nickel in NY. I live in IL, and try my best to not spend a cent in Chicago since it is the Chicago liberal, anti-gun mob that controls this state and has made it the only state without any form of legal oncealed carry. You might be surprised by how many folks here carry, even though illegal, and you can bet they do not ask where they can check their guns when they see a "No Guns Allowed" sign in a store window (some national chains post such a sign despite the fact that nowhere in the State can a gun be carried legally). I can only think that this woman from TN and the ex-Marine as well who is facing charges, lived under a rock to not know that NYC does not allow concealed carry.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
So, Vito, it would be fair to target you for speeding tickets too, since Chicago is actually worse than NYC and Illinois is FAR worse than New York?
You don't go to or spend a nickel in NY due to its anti-gun stance but you LIVE in Illinois?
You don't go to or spend a nickel in NY due to its anti-gun stance but you LIVE in Illinois?
Targeting New Yorkers for what?
If New Yorkers dont believe in leniency why should they expect any in return?
New York wants to aggressively prosecute out of staters for what they perceive as a danger to their citizens.
Tennessee is just saying "Expect to be treated with similar hospitality"
I live in IL only because this is where my job is, and even if I retired today I can't afford the loss that I would take if I tried to sell my house. I think the selective ticketing idea in TN is ridiculous and counterproductive. The way to pressure NYC and Chicago as well is for each of us to continue to try to raise awareness of our cause, and to use our economic clout to not support those who oppress us. I routinely write to any and all of the organizations I belong to urging that we NOT select anti-2nd amendment cities for our conventions. I'll admit that so far I have not seemed to had any success, but I keep trying.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
No, not equivalent. Whether I agree with NY City law or not it is enforced across the board.
Tennessee is saying "we will SELECT New York residents for SELECTIVE enforcement."
There's no other way to read that statement. They will specifically target residents of certain areas for special enforcement of their speed limit laws.
New York City law is unconstitutional IMO. Tennessee selectively enforcing their law is EQUALLY unconstitutional.
It's just like the one kindergartener telling the other "I'm going to punch your sister if you don't leave me alone."
It's asinine and juvenile. It does nothing to solve the problem. It punishes people who didn't create the problem. It spreads animosity where there should be none. Oh, and it's illegal and unconstitutional.
FrankenMauser
New member
There absolutely IS another way to read that statement.
New York City is trying to make the rest of the United States aware of its firearm laws, and that leniency is not permitted. In return, Tennessee is trying to make sure New Yorkers are aware that their roadways have speed limits, and that they may differ from New York's.
They have not stated that they will target NY plates. They only provided a written warning, urging New Yorkers to be observant of TN's speed limits.
They haven't selectively enforced anything, yet. Unless they do, claiming selective enforcement is like claiming I am illegally dumping on Forest Service land, because I have a broken down lawn mower in my back yard.
Sure, I have the means, the motive, and opportunity; but I haven't done it.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
FrankenMauser said:
Maybe they haven't done it yet but you can't claim that they don't intend to do it. That's like saying that you're going to shoot mallards ducks and then claiming that you're not targeting mallard ducks.
I don't care if they've STARTED doing it or not. They said they're going to and if they do, it's wrong. Just as wrong as New York City's gun laws.
If they said this:
. . . we remind African Americans, to drive carefully through the great State of Tennessee, paying extra attention to our speed limits.
Would that not be suggestive of selective enforcement? Why would you single out any group if you don't intend to enforce specifically against THAT group?
Would it not be reasonable to say "Wait a minute... why do African Americans in particular have to be careful?"
It's OBVIOUS. The basic rules of interpretation of written language make it obvious. It has to be read in some unusual, non-standard, illogical way to believe that it says anything else.
If I say those mallards better be extra careful in my neck of the woods, I'm hunting mallards. Might shoot other ducks too but especially mallards.
Don't matter if it's ducks or New Yorkers. The meaning is obvious.
For those claiming NYC enforces across the board, and who I'm surprised don't know better (PK? Come on, man, you're usually a fount of good info...), here's the recent case to which I was referring:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57358604-504083/tea-party-leader-mark-meckler-pleads-guilty-to-disorderly-conduct-in-nyc-gun-case/
From that article:
Quite the plea deal he was offered by NYC.
So, if you are all correct about uniform enforcement, can we expect the TN doctor and the ex-Marine to also get $250, confiscation, and no criminal record?
If not, sorry, but you are all wrong.
Meanwhile, Meckler's post plea-deal comment:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57358604-504083/tea-party-leader-mark-meckler-pleads-guilty-to-disorderly-conduct-in-nyc-gun-case/
From that article:
Quite the plea deal he was offered by NYC.
So, if you are all correct about uniform enforcement, can we expect the TN doctor and the ex-Marine to also get $250, confiscation, and no criminal record?
If not, sorry, but you are all wrong.
Meanwhile, Meckler's post plea-deal comment:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not sure I see that as related to enforcement....
They were all arrested. THAT'S enforcement.
The end result, that's about money, influence and powerful lawyers, like anything else. I would say that's hardly unique to NYC.
In other words, if some guy from Tennessee gets arrested in NYC with a gun and can't afford a good lawyer and gets nailed, while Mr Powerful, Influential TEA partier ALSO gets arrested (equal enforcement) but then has 3 high-power lawyers, is a public figure, throws a stink and gets a $250 fine, well, that's systemic lack of fairness in the penalty system, it's not a difference in "enforcement".
Wouldn't be any different in Tennessee with their speeding tickets. Two out-of-staters go by Mr Tennessee Highway Patrol going 95mph. One has a NY plate, the other a Kentucky plate.
If he pulls them both over and writes them both tickets for going 95 in a 65, that's equal enforcement. Because one of them happens to have powerful friends and gets out of the ticket while the other poor sucker pays the fine, that's Lady Justice losing her blindfold again.
If he lets the Kentucky driver go and nails the NY guy, that's unequal enforcement.
Penalties should be equal and consistent too, but I really think that's a different issue.
They were all arrested. THAT'S enforcement.
The end result, that's about money, influence and powerful lawyers, like anything else. I would say that's hardly unique to NYC.
In other words, if some guy from Tennessee gets arrested in NYC with a gun and can't afford a good lawyer and gets nailed, while Mr Powerful, Influential TEA partier ALSO gets arrested (equal enforcement) but then has 3 high-power lawyers, is a public figure, throws a stink and gets a $250 fine, well, that's systemic lack of fairness in the penalty system, it's not a difference in "enforcement".
Wouldn't be any different in Tennessee with their speeding tickets. Two out-of-staters go by Mr Tennessee Highway Patrol going 95mph. One has a NY plate, the other a Kentucky plate.
If he pulls them both over and writes them both tickets for going 95 in a 65, that's equal enforcement. Because one of them happens to have powerful friends and gets out of the ticket while the other poor sucker pays the fine, that's Lady Justice losing her blindfold again.
If he lets the Kentucky driver go and nails the NY guy, that's unequal enforcement.
Penalties should be equal and consistent too, but I really think that's a different issue.
FrankenMauser
New member
They haven't said anything, except that they hope New Yorkers will be observant of their traffic laws.
Where, exactly, is this statement of intent to target NY citizens, that you keep insisting exists?
Al Norris, I'll accept the separation of powers, but only partially.
The prosecutor had to sign off on the plea deal. That's part of charging.
The judge could have refused to accept it; or, the judge could have thrown out the charge.
But the charging part of enforcement is not being uniformly applied. When the defendant has a legal and PR machine available, NYC is quietly burying the problem.
I'm not naive enough to think this doesn't happen in many places. However, I do suspect that part of the DA's motivation to deal in this particular case is that Meckler could have really thrown up some interesting challenges to NY state's effective ban on on-resident carry, and NYC's track record with regard to FOPA.
(Not that I think Meckler really would have fallen under FOPA, but discovery of other NYC cases could have been interesting.)
The prosecutor had to sign off on the plea deal. That's part of charging.
The judge could have refused to accept it; or, the judge could have thrown out the charge.
But the charging part of enforcement is not being uniformly applied. When the defendant has a legal and PR machine available, NYC is quietly burying the problem.
I'm not naive enough to think this doesn't happen in many places. However, I do suspect that part of the DA's motivation to deal in this particular case is that Meckler could have really thrown up some interesting challenges to NY state's effective ban on on-resident carry, and NYC's track record with regard to FOPA.
(Not that I think Meckler really would have fallen under FOPA, but discovery of other NYC cases could have been interesting.)
I'm in partial agreement with Heyjoe.
A lot of police work involves the officer's discretion (or lack thereof). In most cases, a police officer has the discretion to ignore some offenses, even a felony offense. Pragmatically, an officer may not be able to ignore some things (supervisor is present). But if cops can get creative with "probable cause" statements, they can be equally creative in finding reasons not to enforce a law in a particular instance.
Police, DA's and politicians make exceptions every day for movie stars, athletes, the rich and famous as well as other politicians. "It was a simple mistake" or "There was no intent to break the law" are excuses they give the media. But George who runs your bowling alley can't get word to the mayor or police chief. He has no clout. Here, the state of Tennessee has decided to tell the Mayor or Governor to make an exception.
A lot of police work involves the officer's discretion (or lack thereof). In most cases, a police officer has the discretion to ignore some offenses, even a felony offense. Pragmatically, an officer may not be able to ignore some things (supervisor is present). But if cops can get creative with "probable cause" statements, they can be equally creative in finding reasons not to enforce a law in a particular instance.
Police, DA's and politicians make exceptions every day for movie stars, athletes, the rich and famous as well as other politicians. "It was a simple mistake" or "There was no intent to break the law" are excuses they give the media. But George who runs your bowling alley can't get word to the mayor or police chief. He has no clout. Here, the state of Tennessee has decided to tell the Mayor or Governor to make an exception.
SwampYankee
New member
I agree, and I do not think that they will target New Yorkers. It is just an empty threat. THey know they really can't , they are just trying to poke NY in the eye. Who would drive into Tennessee anyway?
I also do not know what the police in Tennessee are like, but I suspect that they are not championing citizens rights. If all the police in Tennessee were made aware of the resolution from the legislature, would they even care? I doubt they would get angry and go looking of NY drivers. I suspect most of them would side with the NY cops- one less gun in civilian hands means one less gun pointed at them.... That's the general New England police attitude, at least.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I guess I'm kind of old school, where I accept the most obvious meaning of a statement in the context it is written and assume that people say what they mean and mean what they say.
Like my example of a duck hunter. If he says "those mallards better be careful today!", can you make a reasonable claim that he's not targeting mallards?
He might shoot other ducks too but it's obvious that he's particularly after mallards.
This is one of the biggest problems in our world today. "It depends what the definition of "is", is." Anything can mean anything. Even when there are no other reasonable conclusions.
And I say again, if they had substituted "African Americans" for "New Yorkers", would anyone believe they weren't intending to target African Americans? The outrage would be immediate, intense... and justified, because without getting into illogical, tortured interpretations, the meaning is indisputable.
Like my example of a duck hunter. If he says "those mallards better be careful today!", can you make a reasonable claim that he's not targeting mallards?
He might shoot other ducks too but it's obvious that he's particularly after mallards.
This is one of the biggest problems in our world today. "It depends what the definition of "is", is." Anything can mean anything. Even when there are no other reasonable conclusions.
And I say again, if they had substituted "African Americans" for "New Yorkers", would anyone believe they weren't intending to target African Americans? The outrage would be immediate, intense... and justified, because without getting into illogical, tortured interpretations, the meaning is indisputable.
Instead of wondering if TN PD will be ticketing NY drivers, here another way of looking at it:
Suppose the shoe was on the other foot and a CCW holder from NY, OR, ME, WI, etc...some state that doesn't have reciprocity with TN was caught carrying. Should the TN police ignore that and let the person go, should the TN prosecutors ignore it as well? I don't think the TN prosecutors would like that line of BS being directed at them any more than NY is. Is TN saying NY shouldn't enforce their local laws because we'd also not enforce ours in the same situation?
I don't think the lady would have faced nearly the amount of trouble she does now had TN politicans either just shut up or been a little more mature in their response. Now she's in the middle of this, which started due to her own actions, and neither side is going to want to back down and loose face. She'd likely have gotten off with a minor ticket and slap on the wrist, depending on her record, but now thanks to all this she's got a better than average chance of being charged and sentenced much more harshly.
Nothing like a politician getting involved in something fairly simple and screwing it all up.
Suppose the shoe was on the other foot and a CCW holder from NY, OR, ME, WI, etc...some state that doesn't have reciprocity with TN was caught carrying. Should the TN police ignore that and let the person go, should the TN prosecutors ignore it as well? I don't think the TN prosecutors would like that line of BS being directed at them any more than NY is. Is TN saying NY shouldn't enforce their local laws because we'd also not enforce ours in the same situation?
I don't think the lady would have faced nearly the amount of trouble she does now had TN politicans either just shut up or been a little more mature in their response. Now she's in the middle of this, which started due to her own actions, and neither side is going to want to back down and loose face. She'd likely have gotten off with a minor ticket and slap on the wrist, depending on her record, but now thanks to all this she's got a better than average chance of being charged and sentenced much more harshly.
Nothing like a politician getting involved in something fairly simple and screwing it all up.
- Status