NYC To Judge: Let’s Not Mention The Second Amendment In Our Lawsuit Against Gunshops, Okay?

Ken McCracken • May 10, 2008

Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.
“Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has a problem with both the First and the Second amendments,” Lawrence Keane, the general counsel of a firearms industry association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said.
The trial, set to begin May 27, involves a Georgia gun shop, Adventure Outdoors, which the city alleges is responsible for a disproportionate number of the firearms recovered from criminals in New York City. The gun store’s owner, Jay Wallace, says his store abides by Georgia and federal regulations and takes steps to avoid selling firearms to gun traffickers. Mr. Wallace’s store is one of 27 out-of-state gun shops sued by New York City, and the first to go to trial.

Their reasoning that the Second Amendment should be ignored in the lawsuit on out-of-state gunshops?

City lawyers, in a motion filed Tuesday, asked the judge, Jack Weinstein of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, to preclude the store’s lawyers from arguing that the suit infringed on any Second Amendment rights belonging to the gun store or its customers. In the motion, the lawyer for the city, Eric Proshansky, is also seeking a ban on “any references” to the amendment.
“Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant,” the brief states.
Many Americans believe that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a gun. Others believe that it provides no right to private gun ownership, but gives states the power to keep militias.
In a recent court deposition, Mayor Bloomberg said he believed “the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives you the right to keep and bear arms.” But in a recent brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg argued that the amendment “was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort — either federal or state.”

Yikes!
That’s one of our elected representatives telling a court that the Second Amendment is basically meaningless and can be ignored in a trial about…..the Second Amendment.
Pretzel liberal logic at its best.

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array jpe

I’m sure NYC’s argument is that the 2nd amendment isn’t relevant to the instant case. It’d be like a judge precluding a defendant from arguing that the law under which s/he is charged is a bad law.

That’s not a legal argument; it’s nullification. And judges tend to frown on nullification, IIRC. If the law is really defective (here, if NYC’s legal theory controverts the 2nd amendment), it’s for an appellate court, and not a jury, to decide.

That’s the argument, at any rate. If the judge agrees that mention of 2nd amendment is akin to a plea for jury nullification, it wouldn’t surprise me if s/he ruled in NYC’s favor.

At the same time, I ain’t no trial lawyer, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone else if I’m wrong.
Bat One

jpe,

I believe the lawsuit in question is civil, not criminal, and federal not state. As such, I don’t think jury nullification applies in this case.

I also don’t expect Diane Melnick to represent the defendants.
Bat One

I think we should keep our sights trained on what goes on his Judge Weinstein’s chamber. If the DC ruling hits the target sooner than expected there’ll be a whole new round of consultations and motions in the NYC case.
Bat One

Proof,

I get a real charge out of this stuff. And I believe you’re right on target with your assessment of the upcoming DC ruling. It should trigger a massive reassessment of our gun control laws across the country, including NYC, and those liberals who keep trying to ignore or rationalize away the Second Amendment are going to be positively shell-shocked.
2Hotel9

Yes, violent criminals should NOT be legally allowed to purchase firearms. On the obverse, you should go down the list of what is classified as a felony. If you are convicted of the felony of tampering with a “wetland” because you placed topsoil in a low area on your property should you lose your right to keep and bear? The EPA says yes. There are many things you can receive a felony conviction for, and nowhere near all of them involve violent criminal behavior.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Just got back from the dentist…too much elevator music! No Pachelbel’s Canon, no Beatles’ Revolver!
B1: I expected a man of your caliber to fire off a few more in my absence! Personally, I think you have a lot of brass to have done as many as you did! Did someone muzzle you?
Spartacus

How does the rest of New York feel about Bloombergs decision that the bill of rights doesn’t apply to New York? If Bloomberg wants New York to secede, no sweat off my butt, as long as New York gets none of my tax dollars and New York is no longer considered part of the United States.

Bloomberg needs to be careful when it comes to wishing, the I-80 corridor was built to move products from the west to the east, I somehow think New York, New Yorkers won’t find rat-it-2e pleasant when it actually contains rats.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

B1: I must be off to the dentist soon,(Hope he doesn’t bust any caps!) so do not doubt the flint of my resolve in answering any puns in my absence. I shall prove a match for you any day!
Neiman

I wish I could be so sure that the DC case will uphold the Second Amendment. I suspect it will be a mushy decision as the Supremes will want to keep control of every future appeal, which would not be necessary if the decision was clear.
Lestat

I thought Congress had enacted some legislature to protect gun stores from this type of law suit. What am I missing?

A federal lawsuit was dismissed against gun manufacturers, not the same thing.

They are being sued for knowingly ignoring the background check in federal and state law. Because we don’t allow firearms to be sold to felons, the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to a trial court.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

A suit/trial about firearms and no mention of the 2nd Amendment. I guess Bloomie and his lawyers are thinking themselves above the rest of us??!?!?!
Maybe the trial should be held in Sheridan, Wyoming. Wouldn’t that get Bloomies knickers in a bunch. Not to mention the possibility of an improvised necktie party.

This is why blue staters don’t trust liberals and people like obama. The second ammendment is a VERY important part of their lives. Bloomberg needs to read the second ammendment.
Pilgrim

Felons like burglars, robbers, muggers, anyone who used a weapon while committing a crime, etc., should be prhibited from owning. That’s understandable. Your cations cause you to forfeit that right.

But non violent offenses like theft, white collar crime, etc., or like the example Hotel just used, shouldn’t cost you that right.

It’s a back door way to crack the Second Amendment.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

I can’t imagine that Judge Weinstein is so doddered that he would think that a ruling in favor of the City’s motion won’t get shot down on appeal.

So, you’re suggesting he keep his powder dry?
George

Should felons be able to purchase guns?
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

Sorry to provide a break from the puns, but it seems to me that Bloomberg’s trying to get his quote inserted into the definition for “begging the question.” Yeesh.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Felons aren’t allowed to own a gun…
2Hotel9

“Should felons be able to purchase guns?”

Depends on the felony.
docdave

I thought Congress had enacted some legislature to protect gun stores from this type of law suit. What am I missing?
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Hmmmm, sounds like Bloomie and his buddies are jumping the gun in this case.
http://dougeefargo.blogspot.com/ dougee

lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg argued that the amendment “was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort — either federal or state.”

Why would the 2nd Amendment be the only one in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to individual rights? No one argues that the freedom of the press is restricted only to newspaper companies and other media outlets.
2Hotel9

As for the Gunshow meme. It is the same as buying from a private individual, a person to person transaction. All licensed gun dealers at gunshows in PA do instacheck, just as the government requires. I believe it is different in Virginia, quite a bit more lax. Same for Alabama and Tejas, also. Docdave and Toot are rather familiar with the regs on gunshows.

Bloomburg and the lawyerscum are merely speaking out of both sides of their mouths in their attempts to abrogate the Constitution. And gun rights are not their primary targets. Not by a long shot.
Bat One

With the Supreme Court ruling the the DC handgun case due within the next 6 weeks or so, and every indication that the Second Amendment will be vigorously upheld, I can’t imagine that Judge Weinstein is so doddered that he would think that a ruling in favor of the City’s motion won’t get shot down on appeal.

I wonder if Michael Bloomberg isn’t maneuvering for a shot as Obama’s VP nominee?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Judge Weinstein might think he’s over a barrel because of this case! It’s by no means a lock!
Bloomberg’s stock could rise with the libs, though!
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

(Some of B1′s puns are a flash in the pan, though!)
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Did someone muzzle you?

He was equipped with a silencer.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Something caused him to bolt! I’ve seen wide receivers that didn’t move that fast! (Faster than a safety! -I think I read that in a magazine somewhere!)
Old Retired Petty Officer

Hmmmmm. A suit/trial about firearms and no mention of the 2nd Amendment. I guess Bloomie and his lawyers are thinking themselves above the rest of us??!?!?!
Maybe the trial should be held in Sheridan, Wyoming. Wouldn’t that get Bloomies knickers in a bunch. Not to mention the possibility of an improvised necktie party.
pparets

2hotel9: After yet another cop-killing in Philly by three thugs, each with an extensive rap sheet, and armed with a Chinese assault-weapon, I have to say I support no guns for criminal felons. The weapon was purchased at a gun show where minimal documentation was required.

I am 100% behind the 2nd Amendment, but I am also certain that the Framers had no intention of including criminals among “a well-armed militia.”
pparets

2hotel9: It’s bureaucratic idiots like EPA who are the best argument for the right to own guns!
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Well, NYC can pick and choose which part of the Constitution is more equal than others. Strange though, if one is talking about guns that somehow the 2nd Amendment should be censored out of the discussion.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

B1: I think you wrote the primer on this kind of ruling! Weinstein will probably only be a shell of his former self when he is through!
I think the DC ruling is going to go Number one, with a bullet!
WOOFX

30 miles of bad road.

Lawyers for the gun store say the two hidden cameras brought in by investigators malfunctioned less than halfway into the purchase and fail to show the precautions taken by the sales staff at the store to prevent a straw purchase.
Pingback: Gun store nyc

SayAnythingBlog.com

NYC To Judge: Let’s Not Mention The Second Amendment In Our Lawsuit Against Gunshops, Okay?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments