WaPo raves about DC decision
Here's the editorial.
"this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded..."
"it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights. "
[At least they do give a mention to the Cato Institute, which actually filed the suit and handled the appeal. It's quite obvious that the Post hates the Second Amendment, and hates the NRA, so anytime it covers the first it has to insert the second].
" Nor, for that matter, would it serve the nation's interest to leave this dangerous ruling unchallenged."
I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Post ever (and I lived in DC and read it for nearly ten years) going this wild over a court decision. It's amusing that in the entire editorial attacking the decision, not one mention is made of its reasoning or basis. The Post's only concern is with its result.
Four pages of comments, overwhelmingly pro-RKBA, and against the editorial.
WaPo has seriously misjudged their audience.
Posted by: Refugee at March 10, 2007 11:55 AM
"...a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent..."
So says the Washington Post.
The line is taken directly from the Brady press release on the subject.
Excuse me, but not speaking on the subject for 70 years is actually nothing like 70 years of precedent.
Posted by: denton at March 10, 2007 11:55 AM
Just a quick note here, the action was not brought by the Cato Institute and I can not find anywhere that Cato even filed a amici curiae with the court. Robert Levy is a fellow with Cato and funding his involvement out of pocket. Even if the WaPo can not get the facts right, we can.
Posted by: Mark at March 10, 2007 01:22 PM
Now five pages of overwhelminly pro-RKBA comments. Libs are going to start hating the internet again.
Posted by: Letalis at March 10, 2007 02:36 PM
I don't know why the WAPO hates the NRA. Hell, the NRA, was on their side on this. Don't believe me? Go here. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm
Thanks to The War on Guns for the tip.
It appears the NRA doesn't like its profit from the problem interfered with by any chance of a solution.
Posted by: straightarrow at March 12, 2007 09:06 PM