Second Amendment Foundation Asks Judge Weinstein to Retire

Brant McLaughlin
On Tuesday, the Second Amendment Foundation announced that due to troubling reports in the New York Sun regarding the how cases get moved to the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein in New York, the Foundation is demanding that the 86-year-old jurist step down.

Founded in 1974, the 600,000-member-strong Second Amendment Foundation is the United States' oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.

"As the New York Sun appropriately noted in an editorial today, Judge Weinstein has a stranglehold on gun and tobacco cases in New York City...In Reason magazine, for example, columnist Jacob Sullum identified Judge Weinstein as 'notorious for his activism and anti-gun bias'...And now the New York Sun is paying considerable attention to the way cases have been steered to Judge Weinstein. There is enough doubt about his impartiality that we believe it is time for him to retire his gavel, or at the very least, step aside from hearing any further gun industry lawsuit cases...Judge Weinstein has spent 40 years on the federal bench. In that time, he should have learned that justice is best served when both sides feel they are getting fair treatment from an unbiased bench," stated SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Sullum wrote his comment in an article about a 2003 NAACP case that came before Weinstein, who used to work for that organization's Legal Defense Fund, in which the organization tried to sue gun manufacturers on the grounds that they "oversaturated" the market through marketing efforts designed to get guns into the hands of the public, resulting in their being at fault for most gun crimes in the United States.

Although they make up just 13% of the population, the significant majority of gun crimes in the nation are committed by blacks, and most of these are "black-on-black" crimes.

Sullum in his article opined that the NAACP's case was prejudiced and was coming before a prejudiced judge. He also criticized municipal governments especially for trying to use gun regulation cases to rape the industry for money while at once appealing to anti-gun lobbyists who want heavy-handed restrictions on the marketing and selling of guns to the public.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a highly controversial case next year concerning whether or not the Second Amendment was intended as a "collective states' right" to maintain a militia that could be called to action on moments' notice, or whether, as with every other right spelled out in the Bill of Rights, its meaning should be interpreted as an individual's right to keep and bear arms as a means of protecting his family and himself from would-be violent criminals-including, if need ever be, the government itself.

Original Newswire Source:
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-04-2007/0004716729&EDATE=

Published by Brant McLaughlin

I am a Writer driven by endless curiosity and a deep desire to waste time creatively.  View profile

2 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Brant McLaughlin12/6/2007

    Why, thank you muchly, Justice.

  • Justice Lives Not12/5/2007

    That is a most excelent article, sir. Our Second Ammendment seems to always be in jeopardy. This is merely one of many endless battles against those who would like to leave good folks defenseless against scum (and, NO, the police cannot (and should not) be everywhere at once).

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.