.jpg)
Last Saturday, we discussed Judge Ricardo M. Urbina's peculiar ruling, against the clear proscription "shall not be infringed" and for nebulous and undefined "public safety concerns," in a U.S. District Court ruling that leaves in place some of Washington DC's more onerous anti-gun restrictions. Now, according to an editorial in The Washington Times, it looks like an omission by Stephen P. Halbrook, the attorney handling the case, may have helped enable Urbina's judicial activism:
...Mr. Halbrook declined to cite the direct empirical evidence needed to establish a record for higher courts on whether gun control reduces crime. Under strict scrutiny, such laws must be struck down unless the District can show that gun control is essential to reducing crime rates.
Mr. Halbrook's reluctance to cite the empirical evidence explicitly linking guns and crime is unfortunate because gun control laws have demonstrably failed to yield any of the benefits promised.
This had the effect that a lower legal standard was applied to the ruling. The time for introducing such evidence was when the case was before Judge Urbina and that window has closed. Now consider there's no guarantee they will even hear it if an appeal fails and the case then finds its way to the Supreme Court.
With these stakes, The Times' critique is serious, all the more so because Halbrook has earned such an august reputation, not just as a lawyer, but as one of the foremost scholars and champions of the right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing stated in the editorial he doesn't know inside and out.
As an interested outsider looking in, I would like to hear Halbrook's side of things, and hope he comes forward, and soon, with a public statement to address this. I trust The Times has extended such an invitation(?) and I'll be sure to call attention to it if a response/rebuttal is published.
------------
'Hatriot' games
I'll be discussing militias and other "scary" things today on Trigger Sports LIVE! with host James B. Towle, today at Noon PST.
It's time to start putting things in perspective and—here's a novel idea—get back to the Constitution.
Comments
He could have even gone a simpler route. Current DC law requires a handgun live fire training in order to own a shotgun. That is indefensible and should have been used to demonstrate the attitude of the council.
Halbrook responds:
Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller took a categorical approach and held the ban to be unconstitutional as a matter of law, without regard to any statistics about the effectiveness of “gun laws.” It was Breyer’s dissent that advocates the battle of statistics in which the government always wins.
See our summary judgment briefs, particularly Reply to DC Opposition at 4-6, found at stephenhalbrook.com .
Statistics are appropriate on whether firearm types are in “common use,” and we put on evidence that 2 million AR15s have been produced for the civilian market. But it was enough for the court that a committee report alleged “assault weapons” are not in common use to make that finding. That does not even pass the rational basis test.
I don't know if I agree that Halbrook erred in not providing 'more guns = less crime' evidence. If the judge had applied the correct level of scrutiny, it would be up to the District to show that their laws worked, not the other way around. Even with intermediate scrutiny a dispassionate jurist should have thrown the Districts laws out because they failed to provide any evidence "that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest". They just claimed that strict laws reduced crime.
Has anybody considered that nothing would have persuaded this corrupt and dishonorable jurist to follow the law or the constitution or recent USSC rulings? Urbina is not an honest man, and certainly not a man who should be sitting on any judicial bench anywhere at any level. Halbrook lost this case before he ever filed it. NOt his fault.
"we put on evidence that 2 million AR15s have been produced for the civilian market. But it was enough for the court that a committee report alleged “assault weapons” are not in common use to make that finding."
Gee, when the gun grabbers want to outlaw assault weapons ten years ago, they say they are the weapon of choice of violent criminals. But when the want to ban them today, they say they are "not in common use." I guess gun grabbers will say anything, as long as it gets them what they want.
Well, you know, this is what happens when you try to ignore the first half of the Second Amendment. Miller is still operative because the Court completely mischaracterizes it in Heller. The correct cite is "bearing arms of the type in common use at the time which could reasonably contribute to the common defense". You can see why the Court ignores the second half of the quote because it completely undercuts the conclusion they want to reach. The Second Amendment is about a well regulated Militia, which is, as the Court says, "everyone physically capable of bearing arms". Possessing the means for self defense is just a happy benefit of a well regulated Militia. For a full discussion of Miller v. Heller see my case, Hamblen vs. United States written about elsewhere by Mr. Codrea. The case is currently before the Supreme Court now.
It is typical of our justice system to ignore evidence or "omit" it to get the desired results. As a Criminal Justice / Social Psychology major I have found that there is NO judge that is capable of ruling in a completely un-biased manner. In this case another judge should be chosen and another suit levied.
So the attorney failed to show the court that these laws contribute to the high crime rate in Washington. One would think that the judge could compare cities with less restrictive gun laws and their crime rate to Washington's. And many consider these judges to be educated.
Statistics and gun laws were certainly discussed in Heller beginning on page 78 of the oral arguments. Mentioning NAS AND CDC studies on the lack of effectiveness of ANY gun law studied had a chilling effect on D.C. counsel.
There should be a serious push to start impeaching. All of them!
It's not even clear (by even a convoluted 'legal' standard) that ANY gun control law is 'rational'.
Clearly no such law (none) will pass strict scrutiny but since none of the CDC, DoJ, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
When gun control laws have NEVER been shown to work, there do not meet the standards of rationality.
Even the very 'reasonable SOUNDING' NICS/Brady background check obviously further irrational since it isn't even enforced on CRIMINALS:
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
It is irrational to have a law that only affects the
There isn't a shred of evidence that any of these Marxists robed in black, would find acceptable.
Yes, I understand the gist of the current discussion is in regard to a judge’s interpretation, well, what he thinks, uh, well his opinion of, well, what he’s determined to be applicable according to uh, you know THE LAW.
And yes, I understand how incomprehensible this may be to taking heads in robes, 'Rights'-violating criminals on the D.C. Council and far too many others--HOWEVER...
under the most rudimentary recognition of simple MORAL LAW--if one single solitary person can show ANY LAW WRITTEN interfered with the fulfilling of their MORAL obligation and Duty as an American Citizen to keep and bear arms, and the outcome resulted in any injury to that person, damage to or theft of their property or possessions;- and any actual circumstance occurred when this injury, damage or theft was prevented by any other person who was armed, not denied their 'Rights' and not constrained by THE LAW, that LAW must be stricken or amended on MORAL grounds, Period.
Anything less is IMMORAL.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!