NYC Whacks Plax For Gun Goof

(My attempt at a headline for the NY Post, for better or worse…)

I have to admit that I’m torn a bit over this Wall Street Journal opinion column by David Kopel, in which he argues that New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress, apprehended when his handgun discharged into his leg while he drank in a midtown Manhattan nightclub, should not receive a mandatory prison sentence of 3 ½ years for his incredible rank stupidity.

And I actually agree with that part; what good does it do to send someone to the “gray bar hotel” who would never intentionally pose a threat to anyone but himself?

However, towards the end of Kopel’s piece, he tells us…

New York City needs to regularize its carry permit system so that law-abiding people can protect themselves, especially if their circumstances (such as being a witness to a gang crime) place them at heightened risk.

In response, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC tells us in this New York Post story (with a real headline) that…

"If you want a gun permit, you should have to really show that your life is in danger, and that having a gun will protect you, will improve the chances of you surviving," the mayor said.

He added that he doesn't have a problem with people who own guns to hunt, but said it doesn't make sense for those in densely populated urban areas.

"I do think that having concealed weapons on the streets of major cities is not something that is in the interests of the citizens of those cities in this day and age, and I don't think the founding fathers really thought about that when they drafted the Constitution," Bloomberg said.

Kudos to Bloomberg for a common-sense perspective here (and I don't see any extraordinary circumstances for Burress to have the gun in the first place).

And Kopel has been an advocate against gun laws for some time; as noted here…

The various gun control proposals on today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods (presumably while a background check is conducted), and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving.

I’m sure someone from MADD would have a word or two to say about that, but as for myself, I’ll just reply with the following (from here):

Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a law this year, that strengthens the Brady law by providing financial aid to states to improve their system of reporting severely mentally ill people to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The law was spurred by the actions of a mentally unstable Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and then himself at Virginia Tech University in April last year.

Even the National Rifle Association, which opposed the Brady law when it was introduced, supported this year's tightening. The NRA was among gun-rights groups that said Brady checks would be useless because buyers simply would turn to unregulated sources for their guns. But the many interceptions of illegal purchasers through the years demonstrate the fallacy of this argument.

Just last month, Barry Cleveland Roberts attempted to buy a handgun at a shop in Norfolk, Va. Police arrested him soon after a background check showed he was wanted in Baltimore, where he faced a first-degree murder charge.

And from here…

A 1999 analysis of crime statistics conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) demonstrates that allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The Center found that, as a group, states that rely on permissive concealed weapons laws as a crime fighting strategy had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to combat crime rather than make it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

And by the way (from here)...

According to a National Post-Election Omnibus Survey, support for sensible gun laws is strong, not only among those who voted for Obama, but also among McCain voters.

The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland, found that 3 in 4 (76%) voters favor reasonable gun regulations in general, with 4 in 5 (83%) who favor Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales, including 84% of McCain voters and gun owners. The results also highlight that the NRA had little sway over voters.

And on the matter of guns purchased legally elsewhere that are used to commit a crime in New York City, perhaps if this country had gun laws as strict as England’s, maybe all four Beatles would have been alive in 2000 when this opinion piece was written.

So yes, throw the book at Burress for walking around with a loaded Glock in his sweatpants, and say a prayer of thanks that the accidental wounding was only to himself. But if there was ever a case for overturning a mandatory sentencing guideline, this is it (especially since, as Jim Dwyer of the New York Times tells us here, many of those accused under the tougher gun law passed two years ago end up sentenced based on other charges).

(I just realized another unintended benefit of the Burress story; at least he won't be able to catch any touchdown passes against the Eagles on Sunday.)