Skip to content

Da’Quan Bowers heads to court on gun charge

Da'Quan Bowers AP

When Buccaneers defensive end Da’Quan Bowers was arrested for carrying a gun in his luggage at New York City’s LaGuardia Airport in February, his attorney said that Bowers would be “fully exonerated” of the charges.

That prediction will start being put to the test on Thursday when Bowers goes to court to face two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. That’s a felony charge in New York and carries a minimum sentence of 3.5 years and a maximum sentence of 15 years if Bowers is found guilty of the charges.

Dennis Coppin, Bowers’ attorney, said that the fact Bowers let authorities know that there was a gun in his bag illustrates that he had no intention of engaging in criminal activity. A spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney’s office agrees that Bowers informed authorities about the gun, but pointed out that his admission doesn’t change the fact that carrying the handgun, which is legally registered outside of New York, is by itself a criminal act in New York City.

Perhaps that’s why Coppin downgraded his prediction for the outcome of the case while talking to Roy Cummings of the Tampa Tribune this week. Coppin said that he’d “rather not say anything” about Bowers’ outlook until after the court date.

With Michael Bennett gone, the Buccaneers are in a position to lean heavily on Bowers up front. If Coppin’s initial read on the case was right, they’ve got nothing to worry about. If not, it could be another long year for the Tampa defense.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
18 Responses to “Da’Quan Bowers heads to court on gun charge”
  1. modhairken says: Apr 11, 2013 10:04 AM

    Hey, at least he didn’t yell “Gay Redskin.” That would have earned him a lot more coverage here.

  2. justintuckrule says: Apr 11, 2013 10:05 AM

    See ya in 2

  3. modellforprez says: Apr 11, 2013 10:18 AM

    New yock def. has some of if not the worst Gun laws in the states ive seen athletes plexxy or even rappers scumbag Pee mobb deep. get years for those burners for what. i mean what is carrying the big gat in public places where the Jakes and D’s can protect you gonna do for yous. triple beam nymean

  4. thejuddstir says: Apr 11, 2013 10:27 AM

    The simple fact that you told the authorities that you were committing a crime doesn’t minimize the crime in any way. People will understand the meaning and purpose of laws when the courts stop having double and triple standards in how they apply the law and punishment. The Patriots player gets to wait until a year later to serve his 30 days in jail for assaulting a police officer…..I doubt the average Joe would get such consideration.

  5. houseofbacon says: Apr 11, 2013 11:18 AM

    The charges have already been dropped to disorderly conduct per multiple sources on Twitter, small fine and he’s out the door.

  6. indyeagle says: Apr 11, 2013 11:21 AM

    What part of “right to bear arms” does the city of New York not understand? How is this city-wide law even constitutional? I’m not a card carrying member of the NRA or anything, but what’s next, taking away the right to peacefully assemble or freedom of press?

    I get the whole “not in an airport or government building” exceptions, but to make it illegal altogether? Fishy…..

  7. msclemons67 says: Apr 11, 2013 11:28 AM

    USA Today is reporting that the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

  8. sportsmeccabi says: Apr 11, 2013 11:32 AM

    I bet my friend 20 bucks that Daquan bowers wouldn’t reach double digit sacks. I figured between this and his injury history, it was easy money.

  9. zn0rseman says: Apr 11, 2013 11:39 AM

    New York, Chicago and DC have gun laws that are illegal and unconstitutional. Organizations like the NRA have successfully challenged these laws and continually win but their communist legislatures keep crafting new ones fast than the Supreme Court can throw them out.

    All that their draconian gun laws have accomplished is to disarm joe citizen and turned those cities into the most violent and dangerous in the nation. This is what one should expect to happen when the two most corrupt entities in a city have all the guns… violent criminals and government employees, while joe citizen is disarmed and completely unable to defend himself from either.

    I don’t feel sorry for those people though… you get what you vote for.

  10. modhairken says: Apr 11, 2013 12:05 PM

    What is disorderly about carrying a gun? I do it every day. Sometimes I even shoot it. NY is funny.

  11. weaponx73 says: Apr 11, 2013 12:09 PM

    Um no gun nut those cities might still be dangerous likeall cities are but those useless gun laws have drastically reduced murder rates thanks to those gun laws. Which is why bring up their current crime rates not the before and afters. And as someone who knows people who own guns in both NY and DC I can tell you they are not interfering with Joe citizens ability to own guns they just make them go through the proper process to get them. I mean I get it is so much safer to just let anyone that wants to grab a gun and disapear to parts unknown. Please. Anyway you got your guns rise up against the government and see how far you get. I love hearing how us having guns keeps the government honest like they don’t screw us over constantly.

  12. zn0rseman says: Apr 11, 2013 1:50 PM

    thejuddstir says:
    Apr 11, 2013 10:27 AM
    The simple fact that you told the authorities that you were committing a crime doesn’t minimize the crime in any way.

    ————-

    I think the point you are missing is that it should’t have been a crime in the first place.

  13. RedRuffensor says: Apr 11, 2013 1:56 PM

    indyeagle said: “What part of ‘right to bear arms’ does the city of New York not understand? How is this city-wide law even constitutional?

    I’m an attorney, so let me ‘splain it to you. NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE, SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS. For example, despite freedom of speech, distributing child pornography and seditious libel are prohibited; despite freedom of religion, marriage to several spouses is illegal; despite; etc., etc..

    As for the ‘right’ to bear arms, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to… use the firearm…” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. The US SC also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession are legal.

  14. indyeagle says: Apr 11, 2013 5:51 PM

    Red,

    Thanks for the explanation. To be clear as to what you are saying, since you are a lawyer and I am not. Since no right is absolute, taking away the ENTIRE constitutional right is fully allowed?

    Let’s stick with your example, freedom of speech. What you are saying is the entire city of NY could (as they did in the case of the “right to bear arms”) ban all speech of all sorts inside city limits because, as you said “NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE, SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS”.

    Or, DESPITE freedom of speech, no one is allowed to talk inside our city.

    As I said before, I understand CERTAIN restrictions, but banning a complete amendment to the United States Constitution seems a little fishy to me. Actually, it seems a lot scary that our government can get away with it and well educated lawyers would defend their right openly.

  15. dabillsrule says: Apr 11, 2013 5:53 PM

    How is there even a single person on this planet that thinks they can get away with taking a gun to an airport in 2013? It’s pretty clear that he had no ill intent but you can’t even take a bottle of shampoo on an airplane. How does he not know this?

  16. indyeagle says: Apr 11, 2013 6:04 PM

    Oh, and even though I am not a lawyer, I do have access to the internet, so I looked a few things up.

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), clearly states that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. Of course, it does allow for certain restrictions as you and I both stated above.

    So, to recap, NYC says you can own a gun as long as you only have it in your house. You are saying they could, hypothetically, make it illegal to speak as long as you only do it in your home. Got it.

  17. zn0rseman says: Apr 11, 2013 6:09 PM

    As a lawyer perhaps you can explain to us dumb laymen how infringing on our ability to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense and against government tyranny does not violate the wording in the constitution which explicitly states…

    “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    I don’t know what they taught you in law school but that seems pretty absolute to me, and the elimination of the most basic magazine capacities, restricting the ability to buy ammunition, and the attempt to outright ban popular rifles seem like a pretty MAJOR infringements to me.

    But hey, I’m just a dumb engineer, you lawyers go ahead an tell the rest of us how it is because we can’t understand how wording like “shall not be infringed” work.

  18. RedRuffensor says: Apr 12, 2013 11:33 AM

    @zn0rseman

    Laws are written by politicians and interpreted by the courts. That’s how our system works.

    So, despite the wording of the Second Amendment (“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), the courts have consistently ruled that the government may LAWFULLY enact gun controls and restrictions. The courts did so having regard for all other laws and while weighing all competing public interests.

    You and other NRA supporters advocate a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, so that there are no restrictions whatsoever on the “right to bear arms”. (By the way, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was another NRA member who advocated the same view.)

    Well, since “arms” literally means weaponry, you must also be advocating anyone’s right to keep machine guns, bazookas, grenades, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc., etc..

    I’m sure that if the strange guy living down the street from you was accumulating a horde of machine guns, bazookas, grenades, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc., you’d fully support his right to do so. You’d just say that he’s a patriotic American exercising his constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms. And you wouldn’t have any apprehension, concern or fear about that. Sure you would.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!