Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Cavalier Knight, May 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cavalier Knight

    Cavalier Knight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    New York NY
    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]
     
  2. gripper

    gripper Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    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::cuss::banghead:eek:k,all better now.
     
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I doubt I could have said it better myself.
     
  4. Bezoar

    Bezoar member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,616
    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.
     
  5. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    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.
     
  6. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    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.
     
  7. Kentak

    Kentak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Location:
    Ohio
    Do you have a link to the brief in question?

    K
     
  8. icebones

    icebones Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    You ain't from around here, KY
    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...
     
  9. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    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.
     
  10. 71Commander

    71Commander Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,335
    Location:
    Headin back to Johnson City
    What's this trial about? One of BB's sting ops?:confused:
     
  11. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    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?
     
  12. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    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.
     
  13. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    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.
     
  14. Blackfork

    Blackfork Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    East Texas
    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.
     
  15. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    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.
     
  16. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    Not quite. Judging not only the facts of the matter at hand, but also the law itself have long been part of American jurisprudence.

     
  17. MiddleAgedKen

    MiddleAgedKen Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    269
    Location:
    Fairview Park, OH
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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.

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

    Storydude member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    20
    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.
     
  20. JoeShmoe

    JoeShmoe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    New York
    That was Elliot Spitzer, governor of NY State.
     
  21. Sage of Seattle

    Sage of Seattle Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    773
    Hmmm... maybe because judges themselves have been erroneously telling people that?


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

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
    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.
     
  23. Euclidean

    Euclidean Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  24. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
  25. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    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"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice