Bloomberg Outrage: Asks Judge To Ban 2nd Amendment References!

Cavalier Knight · May 9, 2008

NEWS RELEASE

BLOOMBERG OUTRAGE: ASKS JUDGE TO BAN 2ND AMENDMENT REFERENCES!

BELLEVUE, WA – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has moved from outrage to atrocity by asking anti-gun activist federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during a civil lawsuit trial beginning May 27 against Georgia gun dealer Jay Wallace, proprietor at Adventure Outdoors.

The New York Sun reported that Bloomberg’s attorneys made the request. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the move clearly shows that Bloomberg has “total disregard not only for the Second Amendment, but also the First.”

Bloomberg’s attorney on this case, Eric Proshansky, has reportedly argued in a brief that “Any references to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant” to the upcoming trial.

“This trial is supposed to be held in a federal court, not a kangaroo court,” Gottlieb stated. “What’s next, a request that Judge Weinstein not allow defense witnesses or rebuttal? Why not just dispense with the trial altogether and lynch Mr. Wallace from the limb of a tree out in Central Park?

“The civil prosecution, and un-civil persecution, of Jay Wallace has never really been about the Second Amendment, until right now,” he observed. “And, thanks to Mr. Proshansky’s brief, this trial is suddenly all about the First Amendment as well.

“We are neither surprised nor shocked at Mayor Bloomberg and the city’s attorney for making this move,” Gottlieb added. “This is the kind of behavior one should expect from a billionaire demagogue who considers himself so far above the law that he launched this vigilante campaign against firearms retailers by stepping outside legal channels in the first place. He sent private agents to several states without legal authority, jeopardizing legitimate on-going criminal investigations in the process.

“Now Bloomberg wants a gag order,” he concluded. “Apparently, in Mikey’s world, a fair trial is one in which a defense attorney is muzzled, and the defendant is already guilty until proven innocent. Bloomberg missed his calling. Instead of being mayor of an American city, he should have been the administrator of a gulag.”

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: [email protected]

gripper · May 9, 2008

Bllomberg's problesids that he read a lot of Orwell back in the day and thought 1984 was a "How to Govern" the rest of us proles :cuss:

:banghead

k,all better now.

Standing Wolf · May 9, 2008

Bloomberg missed his calling. Instead of being mayor of an American city, he should have been the administrator of a gulag.

I doubt I could have said it better myself.

Bezoar · May 9, 2008

actually hes more like the pigs in animal farm then the commandant of a gulag. for one thing, the commandant of a gulag would be required to obey the laws they swore to enoforce and protect.

Robert Hairless · May 9, 2008

Don't be surprised if Judge Jack B. Weinstein grants the motion. If Bloomberg asked for the death penalty, Hangin' Jack Whack would grant that too.

romma · May 9, 2008

Bloomberg missed his calling. Instead of being mayor of an American city, he should have been the administrator of a gulag.”

He already is.. Granted a Gulag with entertaining distractions, but one that is shackled nonetheless...

Alan Gottlieb Rocks! Give Em' hell Alan!

I really need to join that foundation.

Kentak · May 9, 2008

Do you have a link to the brief in question?

K

icebones · May 10, 2008

i though bloomberg resigned a few weeks back?

or does he still have "resididual" power in the government.

i guess he knows his time is up, and he's tryin to do as much damage on his was out...

everallm · May 10, 2008

Icebones,

Who told you BB left office?

Still there still doing his mayor thing, this week in London,making nice with the new Mayor of London.

71Commander · May 10, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has moved from outrage to atrocity by asking anti-gun activist federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during a civil lawsuit trial beginning May 27 against Georgia gun dealer Jay Wallace, proprietor at Adventure Outdoors.

What's this trial about? One of BB's sting ops?

Blackbeard · May 10, 2008

I hate to say it but Bloomberg is right. It is inappropriate to make legal arguments to the jury. Juries are there to decide questions of fact -- who is telling the truth, what really happened, etc. Questions of law, including the applicability of the second amendment, are the judge's domain. Constitutional challenges to the plaintiff's case should be made in pretrial hearings, not during the trial. Or so I believe.

Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?

frankie_the_yankee · May 10, 2008

I hate to say it but Bloomberg is right. It is inappropriate to make legal arguments to the jury. Juries are there to decide questions of fact -- who is telling the truth, what really happened, etc. Questions of law, including the applicability of the second amendment, are the judge's domain. Constitutional challenges to the plaintiff's case should be made in pretrial hearings, not during the trial. Or so I believe.

Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?

IANAL, but I do not believe there is any basis in law for a judge to prohibit anyone from making a reference to either the 2A or a state constitutional provision during a trial.

If an attorney believes his opponent is making an improper argument at any given time, he is perfectly free to issue an "objection". The judge can decide whether to overrule or sustain based on the specifics of the particular situation.

Waitone · May 10, 2008

Instructions from a judge may or may not have anything to do with what goes on in the jury room. Once the jury goes to work both the defendant and the law get judged. Jury nullification is a wonderful thing.

Blackfork · May 10, 2008

Arkansas Federal Trial of Wayne

The Federal Judge in the Arkansas Trail of Wayne somebody- the militia guy, granted exactly this same motion when asked by the Federal Prosecutors.

Blackbeard · May 10, 2008

IANAL, but I do not believe there is any basis in law for a judge to prohibit anyone from making a reference to either the 2A or a state constitutional provision during a trial.

They make pretrial motions on what may and may not be said during the trial all the time. They exclude things that would be prejudicial. Yes, your opposition can object and be sustained, but you still prejudiced the jury by saying it. You can only present evidence to support facts you wish to allege. I don't see what material fact may be presented by asking a witness about the second amendment.

Sindawe · May 10, 2008

Questions of law, including the applicability of the second amendment, are the judge's domain.

Not quite. Judging not only the facts of the matter at hand, but also the law itself have long been part of American jurisprudence.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal case being tried is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural, inalienable, or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all--for no one is bound to obey an unjust law...the law itself is on trial, quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."--Harlan F. Stone, former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."--John Adams, 1771

MiddleAgedKen · May 10, 2008

Prosecutors in federal gun cases and the presiding judges often bar Second Amendment arguments (this is probably where Mayer Mikey's prosecutor got the idea).

That said, juries have and have always had the right and authority to judge the law as well as the facts.

Bartholomew Roberts · May 10, 2008

As originally conceived during the founding of this country, juries were able to determine matters of both fact and law.

Since the late 1800s, the trend has been that juries decide matters of fact and judges decide matters of law. In jurisdictions where the Second Amendment is held to be a collective right and there is ample precedent on that from higher courts (like New York, Arkansas, etc.) the trial judge may limit the discussion on the theory that the defendant can appeal the decision to the higher court that originally established the precedent if they want to challenge the interpretation of the law.

Jury nullification is a wonderful thing.

Because what could go wrong with letting 12 randomly selected people set aside laws established by our elected representatives?

Storydude · May 10, 2008

I want to know when Bloomberg's Cronies are going to be tried for running an illegal Sting operation, not only out of CITY Jurisdiction but out of STATE jurisdiction......That seems somewhat Illegal to me.

JoeShmoe · May 10, 2008

i though bloomberg resigned a few weeks back?

or does he still have "resididual" power in the government.

i guess he knows his time is up, and he's tryin to do as much damage on his was out...

That was Elliot Spitzer, governor of NY State.

Sage of Seattle · May 10, 2008

Since the late 1800s, the trend has been that juries decide matters of fact and judges decide matters of law.

Hmmm... maybe because judges themselves have been erroneously telling people that?

Because what could go wrong with letting 12 randomly selected people set aside laws established by our elected representatives?

Nothing. A jury is another check upon the abuses of the government in the legal/judiciary system.

rocinante · May 10, 2008

So shocking. Bloomberg is on Obama's short list for V.P.

They want to win so they ask a sympathetic judge to stack the deck. Sounds right to me given who is playing.

Euclidean · May 10, 2008

Because what could go wrong with letting 12 randomly selected people set aside laws established by our elected representatives?

That's right, because the people in office, many of whom I voted against, have every right to run roughshod over me because they're so much smarter, better, and good looking.

Seriously I might buy that argument if things were different, but until we rewrite the whole government with some (even) more powerful restrictions on what it can't do, I'm all about jury nullification.

Our .gov bureaucracy is Kafkaesque and unless there's going to be revolution, which there's not because the people who are paying attention are the ones who have something to lose, all possible relief mechanisms must be mobilized in the fight for 2A rights.

Besides, a lot of very good men and women have fought and often times died on foreign and domestic soil so these derided "12 random people" can be allowed to make decisions in the court room.

And finally, due to all the screening, the "threat" of nullification is pretty much nonexistent anyway. Someone like me who believes that natural rights trump edicts is never going to be put in a position to make a decision like that. The whole system is given over to legal positivism, which is about as Un-American as you can get.

ConstitutionCowboy · May 10, 2008

Bloomberg is a crusader. Whether or not he knows what he does is illegal or unconstitutional doesn't matter. He believes his goals are righteous, and the end he seeks is his justification to whatever means he pursues.

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

Aguila Blanca · May 10, 2008

Blackbeard said:
I hate to say it but Bloomberg is right. It is inappropriate to make legal arguments to the jury. Juries are there to decide questions of fact -- who is telling the truth, what really happened, etc. Questions of law, including the applicability of the second amendment, are the judge's domain.

That's what many judges want you to believe, but that is incorrect. The jury is intended to be the trier of the facts AND of the law.

Google up "jury mullification" and then search up "FIJA"

Bloomberg Outrage: Asks Judge To Ban 2nd Amendment References!

Member

Member

Member in memoriam

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Similar threads