The Manhattan district attorney is reported to be in plea-deal negotiations with Meredith Graves, the nurse who faces serious felony firearms charges after bringing her Tennessee-permitted .32-caliber pistol to Ground Zero, apparently unaware of the fact that New York declines to recognize out-of-state concealed-carry licenses, and that New York City declines to recognize even New York State permits. Ms. Graves, upon seeing the no-guns sign at the memorial, naïvely asked a security guard whether it would be possible to check in her pistol; this attempt to comply with the posted rules resulted in her arrest, and could well result in her being sent to prison — for years. If reports of a plea bargain are accurate, then District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. recognizes that justice would not be served by this outcome, which speaks well of his sense of prosecutorial discretion. It would speak even better of him if the case were to be dismissed entirely, along with the similar prosecution of former U.S. Marine Ryan Jerome, who was arrested under similar circumstances.
Advertisement
New York City may not be full of people who believe in American Exceptionalism, but it is stuffed to the gills with people who believe in New York Exceptionalism, and it maintains a firearms-regulation regime that may be unconstitutional and certainly is far more strict than the practice of most of the rest of the country. So draconian are its laws in the matter of concealed firearms that the plain dictionary meanings of words commonly are discarded: Ms. Graves stands to be convicted of a violent felony, even though she plainly had no criminal intent, much less violent criminal intent. Likewise, a person may be charged with carrying a loaded gun even when the gun is in fact unloaded and kept in a locked carrying case, if the ammunition is kept in the same case. Under New York law, up is down, unloaded is loaded, and an innocent error is a malicious crime of violence.
New York’s strict gun laws do little or nothing to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, something that probably was very much on the mind of Mr. Jerome, who became a jeweler after his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps and was carrying $15,000 worth of gold as part of his work. Like Ms. Graves, he attempted to surrender his gun to security guards, in his case when visiting the Empire State Building. Landmark skyscrapers in New York City face a great many serious threats, but Mr. Jerome is not among them. If anything, the presence of an armed Marine, among the most rigorously trained fighting men in the world, would render the Empire State Building marginally safer from the parlous uncertainties of 21st-century urban life. Indeed, New York might have two more very tall buildings if a few such men had been present in a couple of airliner cabins a decade ago.
New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, an anti-gun zealot (among his many comical obsessions), slandered Ms. Graves when he told the press that even without the gun charges, she “would have been arrested for the cocaine in her pocket.” That “cocaine” turns out to have been aspirin, which Ms. Graves will no doubt need, given the headache that New York is giving her. Mayor Bloomberg owes her an apology.
A concealed-carry permit is not a driver’s license. Barring an interstate compact or a constitutional finding to the contrary, a healthy respect for federalism requires that the state and the city of New York be entitled to a great deal of discretion in these matters, including the discretion to enact such pointlessly restrictive and ill-advised statutes as those currently on the books. But a pharisaical insistence upon the law’s letter in every case is the beaten path to injustice, as every prosecutor knows. And while ignorance of the law and lack of criminal intent may not be defenses under the language of the statutes, they must weigh heavily in favor of Ms. Graves and Mr. Jerome, each of whom faces a minimum sentence of three-and-a-half years in prison — which, for a sense of proportion, is three-and-a-half years more than at least one high-profile former New York prosecutor received for his well-documented crimes. A particularly zealous judge could impose a sentence of 15 years.
Mr. Vance should head off this injustice, and New York’s elected officials should revisit the feckless and fanatical legal regime that has produced it.
When does the law of a city overrule the law of a state? This simply shows the arrogance of NYC residents, and the officials they choose to elect.
The only solution is a peaceful, but pointed, protest. Pick a date. Post it everywhere. Have thousands of people arrive at the Empire State Building at an appointed time, each carrying an UNLOADED firearm and turn it in. Force the city to deal with thousands of protestors, beyond its' capability to handle them through their court system. Draw attention to the need for a country-wide (not Federal, we know how they can muck things up) acceptance of the rights granted by the Consitution, and by other states in these United States of America!
"A concealed-carry permit is not a driver’s license. Barring an interstate compact or a constitutional finding to the contrary, a healthy respect for federalism requires that the state and the city of New York be entitled to a great deal of discretion in these matters..."
That's right a concealed-carry permit is not a drivers license. A driver's license is not associated with an enumerated right in the Constitution. Yet all 50 states recognize each others' drivers' licenses.
I'm as much a supporter of federalism as the next small-government conservative, but if it is not a draconian violation of federalist principles to recognize drivers' licenses, birth certificates, marriage licenses and numerous other types of licenses, documents and contracts across state boundaries, then why is national recognition of concealed carry permits beyond the pale?
The egregious harm to invdividual liberty caused by this state of affairs is becoming patently obvious. When behavior that qualifies one as an upstanding citizen in Vermont, Alaska or Wyoming is classified as a violent felony in New York City, we are reaching a situation analogous to "slave states" and "free states" in the antebellum U.S. -- the nation cannot continue in a fashion where fundamental freedoms can be abrogated at state (or city ... or airport) boundaries.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?
If individual states or individual cities can determine that the Constitution does not apply inside their boundaries what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
NY/NYC has NO discretion in this as far as I can tell;the Constitution's Second Amendment is VERY clear;"the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". SCOTUS has already ruled that this RKBA is an individual right,not a "militia right". NY and NYC's laws prohibiting lawful citizens carrying loaded guns are unconstitutional,PERIOD,end of discussion.
When NY signed on to become a member of the United States,they implicitly agreed to abide by the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land,ALL of it,not just the parts they like.It is WELL PAST TIME that SCOTUS and lower courts obeyed their Oath of Office and upheld the Second Amendment,and overturn these laws,or refuse to hear cases based on them.
Notice the difference in language between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The first is specifically directed at Congress and restricts its ability to infringe on our God given rights listed in the 1st. The snd is a general prohibition on ANY government entity enfringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
That and $1.25 will buy you a cup of coffee at Mickey Dee's. As you know, laws that are unconstitutional must first be challenged in court and deemed "ripe" by the SCOTUS before any rectification can be manifested. And, no one has standing unless they have already been raped by these laws and can prove harm, not an attractive proposition, which propels the plea bargain process, which in turn defeats the probability of said rectification.
That and $1.25 will buy you a cup of coffee at Mickey Dee's. As you know, laws that are unconstitutional must first be challenged in court and deemed "ripe" by the SCOTUS before any rectification can be manifested. And, no one has standing unless they have already been raped by these laws and can prove harm, not an attractive proposition, which propels the plea bargain process, which in turn defeats the probability of said rectification.
I came here to say exactly the same thing. We are citizens with individual rights, not subjects whose rights exist at the caprice of Prince Bloomberg. One more reason not to go to New York.
"A driver's license is not associated with an enumerated right in the Constitution. Yet all 50 states recognize each others' drivers' licenses."
They are required to do that by yet another specific clause within the Constitution: the "full faith and credit clause". No one has come up with a reason that clause should NOT apply equally to gun licenses.... or marriage licenses, especially gay ones. No gay marriage license should ever be recognized by any state if it is issued by any jurisdiction that does not recognize that state's CHL's.
Ms. Graves should sue Mayor Bloomberg and the City of New York for his slanderous "cocaine" public remark.
One can only hope that she refuses any type of plea deal unless it is one that totally exonerates her and begs her forgiveness. She should force the idiots who run New York City and its so-called "justice" system to put her case in front of a jury and the media. This is what is sometimes called a "teachable moment" for the fearmongers and statist thugs who apparently can no more read and comprehend the English language of the United States Consitution than they understand the meaning of the word "violent."
How about let's just cross New York off our list of domestic tourism destinations until they learn to treat visitors from American with proper hospitality and grace?
That's right, you heard me: my fellow Americans, we should boycott New York until it straightens up and flies right.
I'm disturbed that mens rea has clearly gone out the window as an element of some felonies. The women obviously had no criminal intent and the crime is clearly malum prohibitum rather than malum in se.
But, if the charges aren't dismissed, perhaps the consolation prize will be that it becomes a test case on the constitutionality of the New York law -- which, if it caused the law to be struck down, would be a terrific thing.
But I say that not as the person whose future is being staked on a constitutional test case. The woman herself is better off with the charges simply dismissed.
Amazing comment, obviously your expressing your 1st Amendment righ, so that would indicate to some degree that you do understand the various amendments, so lets go to number two, the right to bear arms.... Yeah... there you go... Imagine now for a moment if NYC can easily dispense with the 2nd how easily dispense with the 1st....
Its ok you don't have to apologize... no really.... its not necessary.... your just expressing your opinion and have the right to do so, just as she has the right to carry a pistol...
Doc out:
Sure...put her in prison for exercising her Constitutional right, and willingly trying to comply with the laws of New York by volunteering to surrender her gun.
You truly are an artisan in the medium of stupidity.
