Excellent
Today, a Manhattan-based federal appeals court ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against firearms manufacturers by the City of New York that sought to hold the manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms.
Judge Robert J. Miner, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals, held the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, enacted in 2005, is constitutional and that Brooklyn, NY, federal court judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law by not dismissing the case.
Good. Judge Weinstein was originally chosen because he’s an anti-gun judge. And I think it’s the same case started by 9iu11ani. Say, speaking of Rudy, he doing much these days?
Update: David links the opinion.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Under the law, N.Y. 1 Penal Law § 240.45 provides, in pertinent part:
2 A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when. . .
3 By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he
4 knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or
5 health of a considerable number of persons . . . .
So is Bloomberg, through his conduct “unreasonable under all the circumstances,” potentially guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree for his anti-self-defense activities?
This law seems like a catch-all against general mopery and unseemly political incorrectness….
Aren’t laws which are too vague unconstitutional?
April 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Rudy who?
BTW, this is a great decision and a real spanking of Judge Weinstein.
Just because you wear the black robe doesn’t mean you get to write the laws.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Mike is correct in noticing that laws which are intentionally worded in such a way as to be vague are unconstitutional.
Chris got it right as well when he points out that just because of the black robe doesn’t mean you get to write the laws, to the contrary, that function is left to the legislature.
“judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law”, actually judge Weinstein went along with an end around that he knew to be both unconstitutional because it was intentionally vague and in so doing showed that his bias deserves his removal from the bench.