Lawyer Robert A. Levy talks about assembling the plaintiffs and putting together the case for
the successful attack on the D.C. gun ban:
"No Looney Tunes," Levy said. "You know, you don't want the guy who just signed up for the militia. And no criminal records. You want law-abiding citizens."
..."We called all our contacts in the legal community," Levy said. "We looked at the newspapers: Who was writing on the subject? Who was sending letters to the editor about gun laws?" They scoured the city. "Friends lead you to other friends, and you just keep talking and talking to people, until finally you have your clients."
They found dozens of likely plaintiffs, Levy said. They went with three men and three women, from their mid-20s to early 60s, four of them white and two black. They found a mortgage broker from Georgetown and a neighborhood activist in a crime-scarred area of Northeast Washington. They also lined up a communications lawyer, a government office worker and a courthouse security guard. In their disparate walks of life, the six shared an eagerness to arm themselves.
Levy knew only one of them: Tom G. Palmer, 50, a Cato colleague who is gay. Years ago in California, Palmer said, he brandished a pistol to scare off several men who he feared were about to attack him because of his sexual orientation. He said he wants to be able to legally defend himself in his Washington home.
Read the whole thing. Levy is a libertarian, with no connection to gun rights groups.
"I don't want this portrayed as litigation that the gun community is sponsoring. . . . I don't want to be beholden to anyone. I want to call the shots, with my co-counsel."
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
"It was [Levy's] idea, his project, his philosophical mission to mount a legal challenge to the city's 'draconian' gun restrictions, which are among the toughest in the nation."
I suppose that challenging gun laws in D.C. also has the advantage that you're dealing with a pure Second Amendment question - challenging a state or sub-state ban would necessarily involve getting into incorporation questions.
Levy is a hero. As a DC resident, I am thankful that there are people like him that are still dedicated to protecting our Constitution.
Women with guns don't get raped.
Peace, Maxine
Maxine - I'd like to see some statistical evidence before I bought that argument.
I might buy, just on the face of it, that women who carry guns and have the training, instinct and nerve to use them are substantially less likely to get raped, but that's not quite the same argument. The old saw - "guns don't kill people, bullets do" - covers up an uncomfortable truth: if you can't or won't pull the trigger, a gun won't help you, and I think the average person is substantially more willing to mace a guy than to shoot him in the face. You don't hesitate to injure, but you might hesitate to kill.
just out of curiosity...isn't there anything in the legal code of ethics that addresses lawyers going out and assembling a case? something like finding a bunch of people and then finding an auto accident to tramatize them?
and for such a good cause too. more guns....wow. and backed up by the usual assortment of dubious statistics and by the same dubious players.
maxine et al, do you think a rapist considers if or not the victim is "packing" and trained to use it with the mindset that supports it? do you think that is how it works?
so off to the races with another shot at the 2nd amendment. calling lapierre...calling all brownshirts.
Statistics?
Overwhelmingly, the women who file rape charges, didn't have guns on them.
Dead men don't rape.
Peace, Maxine
Overwhelmingly, the women who file rape charges, didn't have guns on them.
That's not statistics. At best it's somewhere between a flaky and a false syllogism.
Didn't really work out for Thelma or Louise now did it?
Peter Palladas said...
"That's not statistics. At best it's somewhere between a flaky and a false syllogism."
I agree, but let's be clear about the scope of my issue with Maxine's comment - she only has to provide evidence to support the the statement, but her statement doesn't have to be true for her to be on the right side of this ruling. The normative question ("does gun control work") is basically irellevant if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, which of course is the point of this lawsuit. You could have the best policy in the world - BCRA, gun control, you know, whatever - backed up by the very best normative arguments and empirical evidence that they'll work, but if you can't make the case that the Constitution allows it, for better or worse, you ain't got nothing. And a legislator who says "we'll leave that to the courts to figure out" is in violation of their oath of office.
Don't shoot Maxine! Bore them to death with banal statistical analysis.
if you can't or won't pull the trigger, a gun won't help you
Now you've gone too broad in the other direction. It would be more accurate to say "if you can't or won't pull the trigger, and your assailant knows that fact, a gun won't help you."
Don't you think there are numerous occasions where the mere sight of a gun has scared someone off, even though, in truth, the woman wouldn't or couldn't have pulled the trigger?
Even so...
There's nothing like a good pistol whipping.
Peace, Maxine
I'm gay, feminist and Southern, so I guess I have some conflicting feelings on guns. But I am very much in favor of self defense, and I am armed. Gun ownership, carry permits, and training sessions are all increasing here in New Orleans post-Katrina, but I've been a gun owners for many years. It's part of my family culture, and I like the equalizing effect it offers women (though I think Maxine is overstating things.)
At the same time, I don't like knowing that people can own weapons best suited to the battlefield, that the NRA defends the right to own bullets that can pierce body armor, that lousy sportsmen go into the woods with AK-47s to hunt deer and partridge. I'd never join the NRA for that reason, and I don't go to gun shows because I don't want to associate with people who totemize guns and revel in violence, even if its only in their fantasies. I wish there was a group for those of us who don't idolize guns but do support our right to be armed.
"At the same time, I don't like knowing that people can own weapons best suited to the battlefield, "
According to US Vs Miller, those are the most-protected class of weaponry; the SCOTUS saing that since the defense did not show that a sawed-off shotgun had any connection with the militia, banning it was elgal (and then sending the case back for the lower court to decide if there was a connection).
I'm gay, feminist and Southern
Elizabeth has to fight for her right to lynch herself.
In addition to what Kirk Parker said about rifle bullets penetrating bullet proof vest, a steak knife will also penetrate body armor. Ditto a butter knife if it is wielded by a sufficiently strong person.
Also, the Second Amendment is not about hunting so calls for banning AK-style rifles or any other so called assault rifle on account of suitability, or lack thereof, as a hunting arm seems wrong-headed at best.
And, of course, HD, that original brownshirt Adolf Hitler was a gun control practitioner so your use of that term to tar devotees of our Bill of Rights is, to say the least, odd.
I don't own a gun but only because I've never gotten around to getting one. I've done some shooting over the years and enjoy it. I'm even half-way good at it. (Girls often are, for some reason.)
It seems to me that there is a serious lack of training when it comes to firearms and that it is due mostly to people getting all squeemish about them. The result is people with guns who learned all about them by watching movies and television. That's far far more dangerous than showing kids how to fire and clean one and how to handle a weapon safely.
I don't own a gun. (There are none in the house that are owned by anyone else either.) Obviously I'm not a gun-nut. But I will say that my first gut reaction to a gun ban is to buy whatever they're saying I can't have anymore. There is just something wrong, so very wrong, about disarming citizens.
HDH asked: "just out of curiosity...isn't there anything in the legal code of ethics that addresses lawyers going out and assembling a case?"
Interesting question. Ask John Edwards, he would know.
Trey
HDH asked; "maxine et al, do you think a rapist considers if or not the victim is "packing" and trained to use it with the mindset that supports it? do you think that is how it works?"
Actually, we do know something about how people commit crimes of opportunity. Many rapes, almost all stranger rapes, fall into that category.
The rapists choose someone that they believe to be weaker than them and easy to rape. Most do not want a fight, they want an easy rape victim. So body language is very important.
I do not know about you, but I would have different body language is I was carrying, than if I was not.
Trey
Jinnmabe - fair poiint. I'd accept that.
Elizabeth has to fight for her right to lynch herself.
Sorry, I don't get the joke. What are you saying?
Kirk Parker said...(to some extent Michael Litscher added)"Beth,
However, I also think you seriously misrepresent the NRA, so I wonder how direct your knowledge of them really is? For just one example, pretty much any rifle bullet will pierce soft body armor. You need trauma plates to get better protection, so banning "armor-piercing" bullets would require essentially a complete ban on all hunting. Not gonna fly..."
So Bambi wears body armor? Body Armor doesn't work so why do we insist on it in Iraq? Are you nuts?
and to the use of brownshirts/nra/gun control myths -
it is used on purpose. and if you know history and you look past the NRA lies (and yes wayne lapierre lies routinely) and yes the 2nd amendment is subjected to more distortion and historical lies than any other amendment...and yes the brownshirt attribution is cogent as it should be to any group that fabricates out of thin air to push through its world view.
I'm gun free, i believe in the 2nd amendment as written and intended, i hate the idea of a cowboy universe, and more important, i don't think that America is inherently the most violent nation on earth yet our gun death rates are so incredible i think we must be worlds apart OR that our gun laws as proposed by the brownshirt supporters of the NRA (regardless of their agenda) are the death and destruction of this nation.
It was a hot summer's day in Philadelphia. The Grand Convention had been dragging on for months and delegates were growing hot and weary of the constant, endless, circular debates. ('Much like blogging,' as one of them presciently remarked.)
Throughout, George W. was running a tight and a formal ship. No 'dress down Fridays' for him and woe betide any delegate whose cravat was less than fresh, starched and correctly tied.
The temperature rising over 95, the assembled company pleaded with him to be allow to dispense with top-coats for the day. But budge on this he would not. 'Think of the portraits, guys. History must not find us lacking in sartorial discipline.'
Early afternoon a plot was hatched. Someone was tipped to enter the plenary session and advise George W. that his presence was earnestly requested to deal with a really, really serious matter concerning a cherry tree.
As soon as he was out of the room, the delegates immediately passed a clause in the Constitution to permit all-American informality of dress code.
Voted by acclaim it was duly written down by the attending amanuensis, whose enthusiasm was unlimited but whose literacy skills were sadly not up to scratch.
On returning from sorting the tree thing, George W. glanced at this newly proposed clause at once announcing his full agreement, much to the surprise of all.
'Gentlemen, I believe it is a most wonderful expression of all that we cherish that henceforth everyone should have the right to 'bear arms'. But would you please now roll down your sleeves and put on your top-coats once more. I cannot abide the sight of all those naked limbs.'
History eh! Cleopatra's nose, decent note takers at the right time. On such details so much depends.
Peter, that'd be a lot funnier if the second amendment protected the right to keep and bare arms. Pesky spelling differences! ;)
The only sure thing gun control accomplishes is to make sure the victims, if law-abiding, are never armed.
...err, Simon I'm afraid that's exactly what the somewhat laboured joke was intended to convey:)
an uncomfortable truth: if you can't or won't pull the trigger, a gun won't help you
It will if the person you're pointing it at doesn't KNOW you're unwilling to use it. The biggest benefit of a weapon isn't the ability to kill people, but the ability to make people afraid that you'll kill them.
Or course, if you *aren't* really willing to kill them, you should hope they don't call your bluff... but most people won't. The overwhelming majority of criminals won't even break into a house at all if they know the owner is armed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा