Posted on 07/25/2005 10:04:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
A call to arms against the NRA
The gun-huggers at the National Rifle Association will not be holding their 2007 convention, as had been planned, in Columbus, Ohio. Lucky Columbus. Of course, the NRA would never even consider N.Y.C. This city does not believe in blowing the heads off small animals. Or people. Which is why it wants to get tougher on illegal weapons. Guess what group is opposed? City officials are trying to cut off the plague of weapons at its source by suing gun makers and distributors that carelessly deliver their wares to unscrupulous dealers who, in turn, sell to criminals. It's a strategy any levelheaded politician would love - but the NRA and its pals in Congress are doing their darnedest to keep the supply lines open.
Bills headed for votes in the House and the Senate would grant gunmakers immunity from lawsuits like New York's. In other words, the manufacturers could turn a blind eye to the 1% of dealers who are responsible for 60% of the illegal guns on the streets.
The city isn't trying to bankrupt the industry; it's not even seeking monetary damages. It merely wants manufacturers to adopt basic safeguards to prevent weapons from falling into criminal hands.
Although the manufacturers tried to get the case dismissed, it's heading for a trial - perhaps as soon as this fall - in Brooklyn Federal Court. Rather than defend their behavior before a New York City jury, they turned to Second Amendment zealots in Congress, knowing they'd be willing to throw common sense out the window.
Last year, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and the rest of the New York delegation led the fight to block the outrageous law, weighting it down with unfriendly amendments until even the sponsor refused to support it. Now, emboldened by Republican victories in last year's elections, supporters of this bill have made it even worse - adding a clause that would block not just lawsuits, but also "administrative proceedings" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other regulators.
Mayor Bloomberg is calling on New Yorkers to contact their representatives in Washington and urge a no vote on this dangerous legislation. We've dodged the bullet before; we can do it again.
Roberts rules
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released a decision in which John Roberts, now Supreme Court nominee, was the dissenting voice in a 2-1 ruling. Said ruling reversed a gun-possession conviction because police had, according to the court, overstepped their bounds in searching the trunk of the suspect's car. To be more precise, the car the suspect was driving (with a suspended license).
The cops opened the trunk after a records check showed that the vehicle bore stolen temporary license tags. And, lo and behold, they found a .25-caliber pistol.
Showing more common sense than did his colleagues, Roberts wrote, "Stolen tags often accompany stolen cars." He also wrote: "The best [the suspect] could do was tell the officers ... that the car belonged to his girlfriend. Sometimes a car being driven by an unlicensed driver, with no registration and stolen tags, really does belong to the driver's friend, and sometimes dogs do eat homework."
This guy is looking better and better.
Another Giff gaffe
Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who wants to run a city, is having an awfully hard time keeping his tiny circle of aides in line. His latest out-of-control staffer was the volunteer coordinator of his mayoral campaign, Sophie Milam, who inappropriately E-mailed 49 employees of the City Council to try to drum up help.
When a copy of the offending E-mail turned up on the New York Observer's Politicker blog, the Miller campaign said it never authorized the message and accepted Milam's prompt resignation. This episode follows hard on the heels of another Millerite gaffe: mailing slick campaign brochures to voters under the guise of constituent newsletters, and at a cost to taxpayers of $1.6 million - not $37,000, as initially claimed. A "miscommunication," his crew mumbled when caught. But the campaign refuses to reimburse the public.
Team Miller looks like the gang that couldn't campaign straight.
And what of this decision makes you think he will be? Or did you just take the opportunity of this thread to tell us how much you distrust the current president?
It looks to me like the police had probable cause to search the trunk. This ruling had nothing to do with whether or not Roberts supports or opposes the 2nd and everthing to do with proper police procedure. Anyway, he was overruled.
It's a pretty narrow ruling and you should take into account that the writer is a liberal gun grabber and wants to paint the opinion in a positive light.
The cops opened the trunk after a records check showed that the vehicle bore stolen temporary license tags. And, lo and behold, they found a .25-caliber pistol.
It seems the ruling is more on the 4th than the 2nd. Did the officers have the authority to search the trunk iof an automobile they suspected was stolen? Under those circumstances, with no license and questionable tags, I'd say yes, the search was justified.
That the firearm conviction hangs on the validity of the search, is the question.
If they guy had a taillight out and his papers were all good, the car not appearing to be stolen, the search would have been bogus (no probable cause). We don't know how he would have ruled because that was not the case.
But what did you expect from the person who wrote the first part of that dreck? Of course they will spin Roberts as anti-gun. They didn't understand that the question had nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the search.
I'm posting this so we stay vigilant. Too many people think our guns are safe(state and federal) level since republicans are in control. They are safer than they would be under the democrats, but the senate has a close 50/50 pro/anti split between the RINOS like Chafee and the usual dem nuts like Feinstein and Carl Lenin.
The number one gun issue in the entire country are judges. A Souter clone would be a disaster. Nixon(I believe) gave us Warren Burger's fraud(and also Rehnquist). Ford gave us Stephens. Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy(squishes) as well as Scalia. Bush I gave us Souter, but also Thomas.
Or did you just take the opportunity of this thread to tell us how much you distrust the current president?
President Bush is a politician and will do whatever he has to do for HIS agenda. That's not an attack on him, but a simple fact. We all have our own agendas, and sometimes President Bush's agenda is similar to mine and other times it isn't. President Bush(who I voted for twice) frankly has a mixed record on guns. Good - Judge Bill Pryor, Bolton, told the US to go pound sand, signed CPL in TX, backs banning gun lawsuits. Bad - Willing to play games on the 2nd amendment to have it both ways if it helps another agenda. Examples there are signing BICRA(better known as McCain/Feingold), and being on record supporting the AWB and possibly gun show ban as well.
I have a wait and see attitude on Judge Robers. I support an up or down vote on him, but other than that, I am completely on the fence since I don't know a thing about him. All I have is my gut feeling (Rehnquist type - acceptable), but I need more than that to go on before saying "good guy" or "unacceptable".
We need to stay vigilant.
Gun huggers! Why that's the nicest compliment I've heard from a lefty. In fact I sleep with a plush teddy bear that has a handgun neatly tucked in it, like the teddy bear Bruce Willis used to shoot the bad guys in "The Last Boy Scout."
"Why did Josh Sugarmann cross the road???"
LOL! That movie had some cool one-liners, eh?
---"The best [the suspect] could do was tell the officers ... that the car belonged to his girlfriend...---
Then why didn't the dirtbag's girlfriend com forward and say the car and the gun were hers?
I don't think Robert's vote here is in anyway anti-gun. It's anti-dirtbag.
One of my all time favorite movies.
Barbara Streisand!
What a stupid article.
There are already enough anti-gun laws in NYC to make it one of the most dangerous cities in America. So they're going to introduce more? Great. We all know how those anti-gun laws stop crime from happening.
Now I know why I dont read the NYC papers.
has there been any indication of where Roberts stands on the 2A? I have heard nothing.
appreciate any insights.
I've heard nothing directly, just that he is a constructionist in the image of Rehnquist. Where does Rehnquist stand.
It is always the construction of the 1st clause of the 2nd amendment that leads to problems. The 2nd clause is clear as a bell.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I read it as saying, "Because people are the last line in the defense of freedom, the people have an absolute right to own arms."
Nonsense. They had probable cause to suspect that the car was stolen, given the bogus tags -- however, this has no relevance to a search of the trunk (what, did the cops think he was hiding another stolen car in there?)
Why wouldn't police have probably cause? If the car is stolen wouldn't it be logical that there may be more stolen goods in the trunk?
You'll need to brush up on your discernment first. This case had little to do with guns.
That's the way it's always been. The Bill of Rights is for the people, by the people.
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.