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

Discussion in 'Firearm Related News' started by GGReporter, May 10, 2008.

  1. GGReporter

    GGReporter Moderator

    7,251
    1
    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.

    More...
     

  2. G&G Reporter, the link to the NRA-ILA opens but the link from there to wherever doesn't work. It says not found. I checked the NRA-ILA website and the link from there is bad also. Bummer.

    Let's face it though. It was just about Bloomberg and his ignorant attempt to ban the use of any 2nd Amendment reference in a lawsuit against a New York gun shop owner. How the Hell can that even be considered let alone allowed when it has to do with the mans lively hood and business? One can only hope the judge does the right thing and throws the request OUT!!!
     
  3. So, I'd take the city as well as Bloomberg to the DOJ for denying me my Constitutional Rights.

    I'd love to know how much George Soros's money is being funneled into Bloomberg's "interests" ... as well as the mainly, not all... Liberal "interests" (gun control) to get this done...? If I were a betting man, I'd say there is a straight flow to every anti-gun effort on the books as well as the future plans for the dismissal of our 2nd Amendment right.

    Obviously, they also have no problem denying the 1st Amendment right, why would they deny the 2nd Amendment rights?
     
  4. I wonder which other Amendments he wants to throw out?
     
  5. Well, they've already got a good start on the first two... why not the rest? They'd rather we be subjects than citizens, we're less of a threat that way.
     
  6. Exactly who are we less of a threat to? Who is this mysterious "they?"

    It's on the Powder Keg as well, and I believe the link there works.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2008
  7. Big Dog

    Big Dog Retired IT Dinosaur Wrangler Forum Contributor

    I once was on jury selection for a Federal Case involving a Mid-eastern man charged with trafficking guns.
    All went well until they asked us who were members of the NRA, and who had experience with firearms. I admitted to both - NRA Life Member and a gun collector. Both side's legal beagles suddenly looked as if they'd swallowed lemons.
    I was dismissed. :eek:wned2:

    The legal system DOES NOT want the jury to know the subject being tried. It disrupts their ability to make the 'smoke & mirrors' work. :scool:
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2008
  8. Windwalker

    Windwalker G&G Newbie

    Troy 2000, the mysterious "they" consist of the trial judge, Bloomberg, his attorneys, and anyone, such as Soros, who would furnish money to illegally influence the outcome of the trial. If the defense attorneys get a change of venue you will know the original judge wasn't for sale.
     
  9. WE means the people Troy2k .... THEY is the Govt. Didn't think it was that confusing?
     
  10. If you'll join the NRA and read the news releases you'll know who 'they' are.
     
  11. I rather doubt . . .

    . . . anyone can remove the constitution from the courtroom. Even if they do an appeal court will most likely chew them up.

    All our laws derive from the constitution.
     
  12. A judge has the power to bar irrelevent testimony or arguments, though. I can quite easily see him basically saying, "we're not here to decide whether this man has a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; we're here to decide whether he was knowingly participating in illegal straw sales."

    The 2nd Amendment really has no bearing on the case, any more than it would have if he were accused of shooting a dog. I doubt his lawyers were planning to claim he has a Consitutional right to sell firearms to felons, minors or mentally defective people.

    Edit: I looked up this particular judge, and apparently he does have a reputation for having an anti-gun bias. He also has a reputation for bias in tobacco cases. So gun manufacturers and tobacco companies routinely try to avoid him, whenever possible.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2008
  13. good job troy on looking up the judge info.
     
  14. Good point on testimony

    I agree that which lacks relevance can be excluded but that begs
    the question if they are only there to decide if a straw sale occurred then why make the move to keep the 2nd amendment out of the trial before the trial occurs? It seems more may be afoot????
     
  15. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    ^^hizzonner doesn't want any grandstanding during his grandstanding.
     
  16. AdvOut

    AdvOut Guest

    5
    0
    My father owns Adventure Outdoors and its our family business.. we could use the support of everyone in this David vs Goliath case we are going to be in here in a few weeks. We have started a website Home for updates and for those who would like to contribute to our fight
     
  17. Rambo

    Rambo G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    18,205
    9,610
    America
    Anytime lawyers get involved, you can bet common sense will go right out the window.
     
  18. AdvOut

    AdvOut Guest

    5
    0
    My name is Jason Wallace and my family owns Adventure Outdoors. We need the support of the gun owing community to aid us in this fight against New York and Bloomberg. We have a website to get the latest on the case and a link to donate to our cause. We are not only fighting this case for our livelihood but for the future of the industry as a whole

    Home

    here is a recent article to give a little insight as to what we are going thru





    The entire pro-gun community is aware of Mayor Bloomberg of New York City’s lawsuit against licensed FFLs - the lawsuit that was a result of his sending private investigators to their stores to break the law and then try and sue them for it. You may or may not know that as of right now, there is basically one last shop standing that is refusing to give into the bullying by Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies. Adventure Outdoors is still fighting the original lawsuit, as well as having filed a counter-suit, suing Mayor Bloomberg for defamation.
    The ATF throwing Adventure Outdoors under the bus pertains to the original case, which is still being fought in court. Earlier in the year, Adventure Outdoors had subpoenaed three BATFE agents to be deposed in regards to the case pending against Adventure Outdoors. After the initial subpoenas were withdrawn, the BATFE “agreed” to allow the agents to be deposed in written question - now BATFE is going back on that agreement and has filed motions to exempt the agents from their written depositions.
    For the particulars, you can read the entire motion as filed by BATFE in pdf format, pay special attention to page 8 of 20, where the lawyers for ATF say the following:
    In evaluating the burden to ATF, the Court should consider the “cumulative” impact on ATF, i.e., the likelihood that ATF would be burdened with request for deposition testimony in other cases.
    Slightly further down that same page, you find this:
    ATF properly determined that the burdens to ATF from having the ATF employees respond to written questions outweighs any benefit to Adventure Outdoors.
    Essentially, ATF is saying to Adventure Outdoors (and all FFLs in general) that our time is more important that your livelihood. Because that’s what we’re talking about here - the method that the owners and employees of this gun shop use to put food on the table is at stake, but ATF thinks that the cost of losing two special agents for a day “outweighs any benefit to Adventure Outdoors”.
    That would be bad enough in and of itself - but to add more wood to the fire, Adventure Outdoors isn’t just any old gun shop. According to sources, Adventure Outdoors has on at least 11 different occasions gone above and beyond the letter of the law, and gone out of their way to work with and provide ATF with information on possible straw purchases. AO could have just refused the sale, and simply obeyed the letter of the law - but instead they have gone beyond their legal commitment and actively aided the ATF in the past. So now when all Adventure Outdoors wants to do is depose ATF agents and get factual statements out of them, ATF doesn’t have the time to testify. It sends a bad message to FFLs - ATF is basically saying that “even if you help us, we’re still not going to lift a finger to help you”.
    The “cherry on the sundae” ultimately is that Mayor Bloomberg has been trashing the ATF in his press conferences - saying that “ATF needs assistance from the City of New York…to monitor or supervise Adventure Outdoors in its sale of firearms”, implying that ATF can’t do its job. Being deposed by Adventure Outdoors would have given ATF an opportunity to do a couple of things: 1) Defend themselves from Bloomberg’s baseless accusations, and 2) establish some good credit with FFLs.
    With regards to number 2, it’s no secret that there are lot of people who feel like the ATF is out to get law-abiding dealers with ticky-tac violations and legal harassment techniques. By refusing to allow their special agents to be deposed, ATF is sending another bad message to the law-abiding firearms dealers: “Even if you help us, we’re not going to help you.” Adventure Outdoors had in the past gone above and beyond their legal obligation and assisted ATF, and this is the “thanks” they receive.
    With behavior like this, it’s no wonder that more and more, FFLs and gun owners are assuming that the ATF isn’t interested in enforcing the law, but rather in shutting down licensees across the country. That’s essentially what’s at stake here for Adventure Outdoors - their business and livelihood. I don’t run a gun shop - but if I did, I’d think twice about going above and beyond to help them. I’d stick to the letter of the law, stay perfectly legal, but I wouldn’t do any extra work to help out ATF. Not if this is how they treat law-abiding firearms dealers.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2008