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

[frankie_the_yankee]

So we need a good Heller ruling more than ever. This would establish an individual rights interpretation as the law of the land, overriding any previous circuit court rulings to the contrary.

At that point, citing someone's 2nd Amendment rights, quoting from the Heller ruling, would always be in order.

It's OK. I am quite confident we will get a good ruling. If I were the lawyer running this case, I would stall and delay any way I could until the Heller ruling was handed down.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

That's a power of the fully informed. That's a power of the fourth branch of the Union - We the People.

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

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

I'll go you one better, Mr. Roberts : What could go wrong with laws established by our elected representatives?

What hasn't gone wrong?

Snark aside, the "laws established by our elected representatives" formulation is known as the presumption of constitutionality. Judges defer to legislatures on the presumption that they have taken the Constitution of either the United States, the State in question, or both in drafting and debating the law in question. The presumption of constitutionality is better than judges legislating from the bench, but not by much, and as we have all seen, consideration of constitutional questions in the drafting of either law or regulation is not much in evidence.

 

[Blackbeard]

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.

Ehhhh! Wrong answer. If I shot someone in self-defense, and was charged with murder, I wouldn't want a jury interpreting the meaning of "deadly force" and deciding that it meant I should have shot him in the leg. I'd rather they just decide the facts of the case -- whether the deceased had posed a threat to my life.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Keep in mind this will be a New York City jury. They hate guns and haven't ever heard of the 2A, The only thing stopping this judge from keeping reference to the 2A out of the trial is the fear of being overturned on appeal.
My bet. The 2A is never going to be mentioned.

AFS

 

[divemedic]

I wouldn't want a jury interpreting the meaning of "deadly force" and deciding that it meant I should have shot him in the leg. I'd rather they just decide the facts of the case

Whether you want them to or not, they will be.

 

[Waitone]

I wouldn't want a jury interpreting the meaning of "deadly force" and deciding that it meant I should have shot him in the leg. I'd rather they just decide the facts of the case

Most likely a jury would not be concerned about the meaning of deadly force. A jury would be quite alert to a law that would prohibit the use of deadly force in self defense.

 

[BruceRDucer]

You know what...?

You know what?

Until I read this article, I didn't even know who

[New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ]

Michael Bloomburg was. I've never heard of him.

Now that I've heard of him, and his slight regard for the rule of law, I hope he will change his failure to recognize the rule of law, for a recognition of CIVIL LIBERTIES.

/

 

[71Commander]

Until I read this article, I didn't even know who

[New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ]

Michael Bloomburg was. I've never heard of him.

Bruce. You really need to get out more.