Posted on 05/13/2008 10:48:23 AM PDT by neverdem
Law: Attorneys suing a gun dealer on behalf of the city of New York want any references to the Second Amendment barred from the trial. Has our judicial system fallen down a rabbit hole and landed in Wonderland?
It is a statement that, outside of fiction, we thought we'd never see: "Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant."
The line is from a legal brief filed by attorneys for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ahead of a May 27 federal trial in which they will try to prove that Adventure Outdoors, a Georgia gun shop, one of 27 out-of-state gun shops the city is suing, is responsible for arming a disproportionate number of the city's criminals.
We understand that the legal profession is duly bound to zealously represent its clients' interests. But in asking the court to silence the Constitution, they leave the realm of reasonable representation and enter into a dangerous land where the law means only what the authorities want it to mean.
If lawyers can't refer to the Constitution — our founding document, the framework for all our laws and our guarantee that the government can't trample our rights — during a trial, then what's left? Without the Constitution, a trial is rigged, a defendant is left defenseless. Law becomes judicial and legislative whim, a farce, a tyrant's command, not a timeless and unwavering standard.
Alarming as this incident is, it's only made worse when considered in the context of previous crackpot legal theories, among them the idea that Supreme Court justices should use foreign courts and foreign opinions to inform their rulings. Coming to mind immediately is the Supreme Court's 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision. In that instance, five justices considered the "overwhelming weight of international opinion"...
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
I’d be interested in reading the arguments used in this brief to support their motion. I’m sure it’s simply faaaascinating.
One of the reasons I believe it is important to represent oneself in court (lawyer as counsel, not representative) is precisely to face down such nonsense. A lawyer, merely going about his business in his workplace, may be told by the judge to avoid certain terms/issues, and he will obediently submit thereto precisely because he wishes to return the next day to earn his pay. A defendant, having his life/freedom/wealth/honor on the line, is the _only_ one in a position to push back on outrages like censorship, and is the only one with reason to demand - nay, declare in court - highly relevant terms/issues (like “Second Amendment”, “jury nullification”). Only by forcing those issues into the court, before the jury, and onto the record, can they be addressed properly and defended in appeal.
Besides, we're going to replace the Constitution with Sharia anyhow.
Try citing a US Supreme Court decision that the jury is the judge of both the facts and the law.
It was only a matter of time.
Thousands of Henry Bowmans are standing by.... And I know a pig farmer.
my brother was getting burned in divorce court, until he fired his lawyer and started defending himself...to date he has beaten 15 lawyers, and sued one of them and won...he said you can say and do things in court that a lawyer will not or cannot do or say....gives a distinct advantage, if you wanna do your homework..
A judge in my state ruled that a woman could not use the word rape in her testimony at her rape trial. Nor could she use any similar word. When she used the word, the trial was immediately ended. When she refused to promise NOT to use the word again, the case was completely thrown out and was not retried.
I learned long ago that lawyers are paid to be stupid, so no surprises in this article.
Your brother has been divorced 15 times? Maybe he should just rent.
Unfortunately, judges have prohibited reference to the 2nd Amendment to be heard in trials involving guns before this. I believe it was the guy who sold the 50 cal rifle kits out of Arizona.
Maybe he should find a woman that he can’t stand and just give her $10,000.
no, his psycho ex keeps taking him back to court....and losing, but she just keeps on hiring different lawyers
Bloomberg, like most wrist-limped liberals, simply doesn’t get it.
The “it” being the fact that the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government and that neither party has the right to unilaterally break that contract, including little lord fauntleroys like him, regardless of what public “good” is secured in their own eyes by doing so.
The Constitution itself and the Declaration of Independence - the SENIOR document - are base on inherent human rights, given by God to all men. Rights given by God may be recognized by the State, but only God can take those rights away except in certain limited circumstances.
The right to self defence is an inherent God given right.
Violating the Second Amendment, and most of the others, by attempting to abridge those rights destroys the entire premise presented in the Declaration of Independence.
The staff author is clueless as to the legal arguemnt.
Instead of wasting time bashing the legal profession he should be asking WHY these nanny state lawyers want to move this away from the fundamental right arena.
These lawyers are in a losing situation and they know it. Seems they expect the USSC to come in on the side of individual rights. This means they have to try and salvage their case by arguing it is not related to an individual right.
It would not surprise many people, even most lawyers, to find those who do governemtn service work live by the assumption that government grants all rights as a priviledge. There are no inalienable rights in their world view and in many of their judicial collegues.
What people SHOULD be doing is attacking the legal argument and setting up a body of knowledge. Instead the “same old same old” lawyer attacks only will give a free path to the NYC saftycommies.
God help us, each and every one.
Don’t forget Allen Kane.
seems they are borrowing a page out of the current DOJ briefs to try and argue that the second amendment is NOT a fundamental right and subject to strict scrutiny.
They are trying to lay case law to overturn the anticipated DC case.
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.