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.
jpe - 09:05pm on 05/09/2008
I thought Congress had enacted some legislature to protect gun stores from this type of law suit. What am I missing?
docdave - 09:05pm on 05/09/2008
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 - 09:05pm on 05/09/2008
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.
Lestat - 10:05pm on 05/09/2008
Should felons be able to purchase guns?
George - 01:05am on 05/10/2008
"Should felons be able to purchase guns?”
Depends on the felony.
2Hotel9 - 05:05am on 05/10/2008
Felons aren’t allowed to own a gun…
goon - 06:05am on 05/10/2008
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 - 06:05am on 05/10/2008
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.
2Hotel9 - 07:05am on 05/10/2008
2hotel9: It’s bureaucratic idiots like EPA who are the best argument for the right to own guns!
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.
I thought Congress had enacted some legislature to protect gun stores from this type of law suit. What am I missing?
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.
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.
Should felons be able to purchase guns?
"Should felons be able to purchase guns?”
Depends on the felony.
Felons aren’t allowed to own a gun…
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.”
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.
2hotel9: It’s bureaucratic idiots like EPA who are the best argument for the right to own guns!