Can Plaxico Burress be a constitutional hero, vindicating gun rights?

David B. Kopel -- of the Cato Institute -- thinks the NYC gun law is unconstitutional -- and the case of the famous football star, facing ruin, is just the place to prove it.

Kopel concedes that Burress was an idiot to carry a gun in a sweatpants waistband (from which it slipped, so he grabbed it, pulling the trigger and shooting himself in the leg). But he moves on to his big point, using the Supreme Court's new Second Amendment decision -- District of Columbia v. Heller -- against NYC's "draconian" gun laws.

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Lolsportz.

With a hat tip to our wonderful Bissage.

And as long as we're lol-ing, let me acknowledge the much-emailed "vortex kitteh"…



... which was nicely animated by our wonderful Chip Ahoy:

Plaxico Burress's "lifetime of pampering may end with 3-1/2 of the hardest years around."

Michael Daly wants to make Burress "a poster boy for doing hard time." Why not just make him an example of famous people getting equal treatment under the law?

Bonus questions:

1. Do you think the expression "poster boy" should be avoided when writing about an African American man?

2. Do you think "[a] Giants football player can be forgiven a certain amount of confusion regarding state lines"?

IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage said...

If Mr. Burress is going to be on a poster, it should be an lolplaxico:

IM IN UR NITEKLUB


SHOOTIN MAI LEGG