0 votes

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

“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.
The trial, set to begin May 27, involves a Georgia gun shop, Adventure Outdoors, which the city alleges is responsible for a disproportionate number of the firearms recovered from criminals in New York City. The gun store’s owner, Jay Wallace, says his store abides by Georgia and federal regulations and takes steps to avoid selling firearms to gun traffickers. Mr. Wallace’s store is one of 27 out-of-state gun shops sued by New York City, and the first to go to trial.

City lawyers, in a motion filed Tuesday, asked the judge, Jack Weinstein of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, to preclude the store’s lawyers from arguing that the suit infringed on any Second Amendment rights belonging to the gun store or its customers. In the motion, the lawyer for the city, Eric Proshansky, is also seeking a ban on “any references” to the amendment.

“Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant,” the brief states.
Many Americans believe that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a gun. Others believe that it provides no right to private gun ownership, but gives states the power to keep militias.
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.”

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am pretty sure Bloomberg's

I am pretty sure Bloomberg's oath included defending the constitution, not calling it irrelvant. That is a lawsuit that should be in the making, along with a recall of his elected office! (Local recalls are needed in a lot of places!)

Formerly rprevolutionist

Agreed, the only motive the

Agreed, the only motive the founding fathers would have in specifying the right of the people to bare arms is to ensure the balance of power between the people and government. The right for militias to form is so that the people would have an equal right to power. If power is in the hands of the people then government would not try to pass or enforce unjust laws upon them.

That is all that arms represent, technological power.

Yet, over the centuries, "arms" has been whittled away to mean "the right to hunt" and own hunting rifles rather than modern technological power.

It has been diluted so far, that the right to bear arms exists only within the government. Rifles are like pitchforks in modern terms.

Bloombug is a goofer

doing what he is told.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

The Second Amendment is

The Second Amendment is irrelevant? Are they nuts?

As to the argument that the second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, that does not pass the acid test. Americans have always had firearms. To suggest that we have not had the right to do so for the past 200+ years is preposterous.