3 ms·
That's exactly what I'm saying. The carrying of a firearm should not be considered evidence of a crime in progress in and of itself. Nowhere else in America,
by tsaoutourpants 14y ago
That's exactly what I'm saying. The carrying of a firearm should not be considered evidence of a crime in progress in and of itself. Nowhere else in America, save for NJ, IL, and DC, is it unusual for someone walking down the streets to be in possession of a firearm. Lawful firearm owners should not be harassed to prove their lawful status at every turn. The police can ask questions when they have reasonable suspicion.
- potatolicious 14y ago> "Nowhere else in America, save for NJ, IL, and DC, is it unusual for someone walking down the streets to be in possession of a firearm." Right, so we've established that legal firearm ownership is vastly outnumbered by illegal firearm ownership in the above places, and that seeing a legal firearm on the street is in fact extremely rare. So... you live in an area where there is a substantial known presence of illegal guns, that isn't balanced by a substantial ownership of legal guns. When you see a gun, how is it not at all suspicious? I do not see your conclusion as a logical extension of constitutional principles, it seems more informed by your own stance re: gun ownership. The constitution grants the right to search upon reasonable suspicion - I'm unsure how a gun's appearance in a place where there are almost no legal ones fails that bar. Whether or not NY should have such strict gun laws is an entirely separate debate - as it stands it seems perfectly reasonable for the presence of a gun to be suspicious.