In the Interests of Justice

[Jarhead0331]

Sometimes zero tolerance makes zero sense.

Take the case of former Marine Ryan Jerome, an Indiana jeweler arrested last September at the Empire State Building for carrying a .45-caliber handgun — legally purchased and licensed in his home state.

It's not as if Jerome was trying to hide the gun. He volunteered to security personnel that he was carrying it, and actually tried to check it. Nor is he a notorious gangster; he was carrying some $15,000 in jewelry, and needed the gun for protection.

Yes, he did misunderstand New York's gun laws; possessing an illegal pistol in the Empire State is a Class C felony, with a mandatory 3 1/2 year sentence. But that hardly makes him a menace to society.

Yes, Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance has offered to take a felony charge off the table if Jerome pleads guilty to a misdemeanor, pays a $1,000 fine and performs 10 days of community service.

Vance clearly thinks this is a reasonable deal. Jerome thinks otherwise, and he's willing to go to trial.

This is risky business, but principle matters to some people.

There is nothing in the public record that suggests Jerome is anything other than a law-abiding citizen — indeed, one who has served his country honorably.

If the DA has evidence to the contrary, he should lay it out for all to see.

But if he doesn't, Vance would do well to exercise prosecutorial discretion and wipe the slate clean.

After all, doesn't the DA support no-questions-asked gun buy-back programs — where actual criminals walk in and get money for their illegal weapons?

Where's the justice?

Check out this fabulous letter his lawyer wrote to the ADA.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/02/15/media/021512_marine_letter.pdf

[bayonetbrant]

I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment.  I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?

[Smuckatelli]

I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment.  I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?

After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.

On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.

First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw

[bayonetbrant]

it's all about the comma

[LongBlade]

I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment.  I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?

After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.

On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.

First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw

Constitutional Theory AND Grammar!

He's always and LT to me!

[LongBlade]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw

OK, let's look at the absurdity of this act.

• About the 2:15 mark this guy notes that a full auto M16 will run upwards of $20k.
• So we know these guns exist.
• But we can't own new ones.
• And in places around the world something like an AK can be bought for $300

Now I can't say that I'm really interested in owning my customized, Orange County Cycles pimped out MLRS, but it is absurd to suggest that bad guys won't modify their own weapons if they wanted to.

This just seems silly. But these days silly seems to be the new fashion.

Edit: Fixed. Gotta be smarter than the HTML code somedays.
[/list]

[Smuckatelli]

That comma really gave me a V8 moment.

People have been arguing that the 2nd doesn't apply to today's United States; the founding fathers couldn't have seen the lethality of today's weapons. They didn't have to, the need for a militia was indisputable as it is today. The comma takes the link between the people and the militia out of the discussion. The people must be able to bear arms in order to have a check & balance between the militia and the people.

The people are sovereign, not the government.

[LongBlade]

That comma really gave me a V8 moment.

People have been arguing that the 2nd doesn't apply to today's United States; the founding fathers couldn't have seen the lethality of today's weapons. They didn't have to, the need for a militia was indisputable as it is today. The comma takes the link between the people and the militia out of the discussion. The people must be able to bear arms in order to have a check & balance between the militia and the people.

The people are sovereign, not the government.

At the time a Brown Bess was as state-of-the-art-lethal as a weapon could be. Arguing that newer technologies shouldn't be included is to miss the point: the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1 if you so choose.

I choose not. But there ya go.

Maybe Jarhead will be able to rack up enough fees to get get us all a new CV someday and we can all go joyriding.

[Smuckatelli]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw

OK, let's look at the absurdity of this act.

About the 2:15 mark this guy notes that a full auto M16 will run upwards of $20k. 

So we know these guns exist.

But we can't own new ones.

And in places around the world something like an AK can be bought for $300
[/list]

Now I can't say that I'm really interested in owning my customized, Orange County Cycles pimped out MLRS, but it is absurd to suggest that bad guys won't modify their own weapons if they wanted to.

This just seems silly. But these days silly seems to be the new fashion.

Edit: despite my efforts to remove the extra HTML, the forums have decided to muck with it anyway. Neat.

It was all nicely packaged as the 'Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986' We the sheep of the United States accepted this as a method to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights when in all actuality it carved out big chunks of the 2nd Amendment.

This is exactly what is going on with the 1st and the separation of church/state. We the sheep of the United States are allowing the government to convince us that it is a women's health issue. That isn't intended to be a cheap shot at anyone, just an observation.

We need to look at the Constitutional Issues withou letting our personal or the media's beliefs cloud decisionmaking.

[Smuckatelli]

................................................the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1......

as a sovereign check on the power of the government and or militia.

[bayonetbrant]

Constitutional Theory AND Grammar!

He's always and LT to me!

[Smuckatelli]

Did you have baked beans for breakfast?

[Martok]

I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment.  I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?

Maybe they're simply going with as narrow an interpretation as possible?  (Or would it be as broad an interpretation as possible?) 

the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1 if you so choose.

I'd much prefer either an F-22 or F-35 (if they ever manage to get the frickin' thing out the door that is), although I suppose that's conditional on my being able to park/store it on Jarhead's CV. 

You know, I just realized the Enterprise is due for decommissioning next year... 

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment.  I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?

After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.

On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.

First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw

What about your own carrier battle group? Or armed nuke silos? You could be modest with just an armed f16. Will the FAA let citizens fly around in their own gunships? No. You will get escorted to a runway where your asset will be seized.


The balance is between the potential to destroy the way of life of others vs personal freedoms. If an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only. Following it to the letter makes no sense. In the arab spring, the countries that changed without fighting did not rely on a second amendment type rule. The ones that were changed with conflict had State level assets interveneing (Libya) without which the revolution would be squashed.


Back to the original post. He should walk free. He had a simple misunderstanding of the laws. His intent was not to challenge the law. The problem will be when others do something similar with intent to change the law. Then you can have many people walking around with guns just to prove a point. Their attitude is more ornery than the average citizen. They will tend to do stupid things in other situations.

[LongBlade]

If an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only.

There is a perfectly functioning apparatus to change any law, ancient or otherwise, that the public might wish to change. Unilaterally abrogating it without regard to the process is both illegal and imperious.