“Gag on 2nd Amendment Is [New York] City’s Aim in Guns Suit”

[jody]

Gag on 2nd Amendment Is City’s Aim in Guns Suit

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.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

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.”

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Still, Mr. Renzulli said he did not plan to oppose the city’s request regarding references to the Second Amendment. Mr. Renzulli, who has defended suits against the gun industry in Judge Weinstein’s courtroom before, said that in the past the defense has struck a deal with the plaintiffs on the matter: Lawyers for the gun industry won’t mention the Bill of Rights to the jury, if the plaintiffs don’t mention the National Rifle Association.

[zanne]

1. I'm not commenting on the trail of this gunshop owner...

I don't know enough about it to comment, but I will say that the "Sun" isn't shy about slanting a story. That's not exactly "objective" journalism. "Gag on 2nd Amendment is New York City's Aim"? Is this supposed to be a news article or an editorial? Please specify.

[jody]

2. I linked article assuming readers were intelligent enough to apply their own interpretation. n/t

[zanne]

3. Well, I hope you assumed correctly. nt

[zanne]

4. I just read the full article.

Actually, I guess it's so important to this gunshop owner to keep any mention of the NRA out of this that his lawyer agreed to it. The NRA is a real liability in this trial.

[Turbo Teg]

7. Yeah, the evil NRA is a liabilty!

How come the NRA is so powerful?

[derby378]

5. I'm going to focus on the silencing of lawyers, not the gunshop owner...

It's like US v. Emerson all over again. Timothy Joe Emerson was a real sonofabitch. But that didn't stop the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals from affirming a correct reading of the Second Amendment while simultaneously denying Emerson's claim.

[jody]

6. Good point, one that gun-grabbers ignore. n/t

[bossy22]

8. my question

why not mention the truth....why all this sneaky stuff about misleading facts and everything with a trial....state the facts and let the jury decide

[ogsbee]

9. Bloomberg is a fascist who fears responsible armed citizens

He prefers subjects. His twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment says it all. He fears the citizens will turn on the elites as they become aware of the elites' continuing and accelerating turning on the citizens.

A modern wording of the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=168595&mesg_id=168808

Further reflections on Bloomberg the gun/camera grabber (gosh, is there a common fascist thread here, ya think?):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=168639&mesg_id=168765

[JonQ]

10. It's more than a little concerning

that mentioning any part of our constitution should ever be considered verboten in an American court.