Plaxico Burress and Gun Law

The author of the article below argues that Plaxico should be freed because (i) the Supreme Court's recent Heller decision regarding the DC gun law will ultimately make all gun laws unconstitutional; (ii) the NYC law is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary; (iii) the various local gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves; and (iv) mandatory sentencing laws are bad.

It's hard to be completely wrong in any argument, but this guy is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! He only gets one argument right (hint: its the last one.) The author is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, the DC Libertarian think tank, so it's not hard to see where he is coming from. Surprising that he would be published in a Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper.

Heller is a very limited decision dealing with a specific portion of the DC gun law and extrapolating that decision to a blanket finding that all handgun laws are unconstitutional is a very long stretch. The NYC gun ban law is not "arbitrary" (in the legal sense of that word) because only a few people (who are "politicians, retired police and celebrities"...oooh those damn celebrities) get "full carry" gun permits.

Let's get real. Handguns are bad mojo. Plaxico is lucky he didn't kill himself or anyone else. Handguns are intended to do one thing only...kill people.

And they do, in alarming numbers, especially in inner cities, like Philadelphia where drug related gun violence kills more than a person a day, every day.

Why don't we get it? We have to get rid of handguns. If we tread on the Second Amendment (or what the Supremes think the Second Amndment means), I am down with that.

BTW, is anyone more bone-chillingly stoopit than Plax? in the waistband of his sweatpants? Stupidity is not a crime and I will bet his salary he does not do time.

Free Plaxico Burress - WSJ.com