Posted on 05/12/2008 11:44:29 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
There's an upcoming trial in New York City involving a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. But in this trial, lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking the judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the trial.
http://nysun.com/news/new-york/gag-2nd-amendment-city-s-aim-guns-suit
What the hell? We're supposed to be a nation of laws, and these LAWyers want any mention of the supreme law of the land barred from a legal proceeding?
The trial is set to start May 27. It actually involved a gun shop here in our home state of Georgia called Adventure Outdoors. New York City is claiming that this store is responsible for a disproportionate number of firearms recovered from New York City criminals. This isn't the only gun shop New York City is taking to task ... this is just one of 27 out-of-state gun shops being sued by New York City.
In this case a motion has been filed for Judge Jack Weinstein not to allow the store's lawyers to argue that the suit infringes on any Second Amendment rights of the gun store or its customers. Bloomberg's lawyer who filed the motion is seeking a ban on "any references" to the amendment. The brief says, "Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant."
Irrelevant. Gotta love it. Our Constitution is irrelevant.
um.... what laws will people swear to uphold?
If I were the gunshop owner, I’d change my name to Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Ping List?
Ravenstar
Boortz is pro-abortion. He’s right on every other issue, as far as I can tell.
Any regular listeners know that he has a total ban on calls about abortion, and e-mails about abortion. He is totally irrational on the subject.
He never explains why abortion is banned on his show, except that “you anti-abortion people need to recognize that abortion will never be illegal, and you should just give up.”
Naturally, he never discusses just where in the Constitution it says that abortion is a “right” or where in the Constitution it says that states are forbidden to outlaw abortion.
He’s so obnoxious about it, and so totally irrational, that I find it hard to respect him as a human being, and I’ve quit listening, despite the fact that he’s so informative and so funny—about everything else.
There’s something fundamentally dishonest and corrupt about any person who can’t see that killing babies is evil, and that killing babies is NOT a “right” protected by the U.S. Constitution.
No one can take such a barbaric, lawless position on killing babies, and be truly honest about respecting ANY law—such as the Second Amendment, or the First Amendment.
Pretty much anywhere though. Bring up the constitution in court and you are liable to be found in contempt. Judges hate that.
If I were the judge I’d instruct the mayor’s lawyers to leave the coutroom, report directly to hizzoner, and tell him that the next lawyer who comes to the courtroom with that argument will be thrown in jail for contempt.
Your point is so obvious that the fact it hasn't happened probably tells us the fix is in.
Isn't this in violation of the 1st, 6th and 14th amendments?
For a guy who’s a self-made billionaire (through entirely legal means too!), Bloomie sure is one confused fellow. No way is this motion going to fly.
Sadly, it tells me that judges are comfortable legislating from the bench and otherwise navel-gazing, not defending the Constitution.
I gotta go with Boortz on this one. His reasoning is sound. His job is to attract as large of an audience as possible and keep them listening as long as possible. Having regular or even periodic 'discussions' with callers on abortion will not be productive, will cause listeners to change the channel, and in reality will do nothing to further either the pro-life, or pro-abortion side of the argument. It just doesn't make good radio.
He never explains why abortion is banned on his show
See above. I have heard him give this as the reason many many times.
and I’ve quit listening
Thats why you haven't heard him say it.
Good point. Neal’s views on abortion and his general bellicosity is troubling. On the issue of abortion, he’s not one of us.
As for New York, A NYC with a Mayor Bloomberg happens when liberals dominate the political scene.
Yours truly,
The Woim
Bloomie is just doing what he always did, but from a position of governmental power now.
I believe I understand what the second amendment says, but I’m a little fuzzy about the point you are trying to make in your comment.
Are you agreeing with the state’s lawyers?
They’re generally not stupid, however.
But does he believe that Roe V Wade should be overturned so the issue can be decided in the states? If he’s for states’ rights, he should. Also, there are many nuances to the issue, like informed consent, parental consent, late term abortions, etc.
He thinks it’s OK, any time, for any reason, even if the baby is viable?
Then there’s smoking and property rights. He’s anti-smoking. Period. Not a libertarian position.
He’s also for fetal tissue research PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. NOT a libertarian position.
End of rant
Be that as it may, I believe the lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg were referring to actual court opinion in actual court cases.
Bloomberg wants to eliminate that issue because it will hurt with a jury if it goes that far. Whether it happens or not depends on what Weinstein does, unless there’s an agreement between the two lawyers, which often happens. I have not seen the briefs, but as far as I know, this isn’t challenged on constitutional grounds.
There is no free speech in a court however, especially in civil litigation cases like this one. The district judge’s job (simplistic description) is to apply the law based on statute and precident and leave questions of fact to juries. I do find it strange that a city is suing a gun shop in Georgia.
I have another question. How do all of these federal gun cases in New York end up in front of LBJ appointee Jack Weinstein who is absolutely no friend of gun owners? There’s 25 judges there. Jack’s a senior judge, and I’m sure he’s not the only one to do civil tort cases
In so doing the Judge also casts aside the First Ammendment—better not try to raise 4th Ammendment procedural motions or plead the 5th in his courtroom.
He must have had his fingers crossed when he swore to uphold the Constitution.
Can we expect the SCOTUS decision soon?? It can’t be soon enough!
GREAT question!!!
A few observations:
1. This isn’t legally about all gun sales, just illegal straw sales.
2. The time for the constitutional question is usually at appeal, not at trial.
3. Going with 2, judges and prosecutors don’t like jury nullification, so they keep such questions out of the trial and out of the jury’s hands lest their power be diminished.
Which is one of the soundest arguments for the Second Amendment.
Basically, tough.
five - six weeks
I don't beleive that Neal is in favor of government madated smoking bans on private property. If I am wrong, please show me where Neal has supported this.
Do you consider privately owned restaurants public property?
I don't listen every day, but I do read Nealz Nuze almost every day. Rarely miss it. I don't remember Neal ever writing in support of government mandated smoking bans in restuarants.
Reminds me of the rape trial where saying the word “rape” was forbidden.
In Weinstein’s court? It’ll fly alright and if it looks a bit droopy, Weinstein will prop it up. Then it’ll be reversed on appeal but the gun shop owner will be broke and out of business.
Which is just waht Bloomy wants.
Word is by the end of June.
Thanks!
Why would a gunshop owner in Georgia be going to NY to answer some sleazy charges brought up by a purse-carrying liberal NY mayor?
Hell. if I were the governor of Georgia and some schizoid Marxist from NY tried messing with gun owners in my state, I’d send a platoon of county deputies to NY to arrest that mayor and bring him back to Georgia for trial.
Because anyone who promotes legal abortion is making war on civilization and promoting the law of the jungle.
I have no problem with banning the subject from the show. Actually, just the other day, he pointed out that HE is allowed to talk about it—it’s LISTENERS who aren’t allowed to talk about it.
What I have a problem with is his being pro-abortion. Anyone who favors legal abortion is intellectually dishonest, violent, and wicked. Killing babies used to be considered wicked, back in olden days.
There are plenty of talk-show hosts who make it known they are pro-life, without allowing the subject to dominate their shows.
I agree. But I have never heard or read anything that Neal has written that “promotes” abortion. His refusal to take up air time discussing the same points over and over again, as nauseum can hardly be call “promoting” abortion. Neither can his position, not condemning it. He has his opinion, and is entitled to it.
Just a couple of days ago, he was ranting against a Republican activist who had said one of her goals was “to defund Planned Parenthood.”
Neal said he was sick of Republicans who want to tell women what to do with their ovaries, etc. He is pro-abortion.
What has all of this abortion crap got to do with the Second Amendment discussion?
Neal supports the Second Amendment. But he also supports Roe v. Wade. Which proves that his support for the Constitution is selective and intellectually dishonest, because Roe v. Wade has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.
And what has that got to do with the issue raised by the title of this thread?
And what has that got to do with the issue raised by the title of this thread?
Not much. So what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.