Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« I suppose this settles one question | Main | IowaHawk on Hillary's assassination mention »

NYC lawsuit--very strange event

Posted by David Hardy · 23 May 2008 05:10 PM

Judge Jack Weinstein forbids New York to call Mayor Bloomberg as a witness.

If the witness is willing to testify, a party wants to call him, and his testimony is relevant, it's pretty peculiar for a judge to bar it. I could see an argument that the subject of the testimony is irrelevant, but Weinstein says the city should call someone else to testify to it, so he can't see it as irrelevant. Maybe the Mayor didn't really want to testify, so Weinstein has been tipped to that. Or maybe it's just the judge running plaintiffs' case for them, as he has in the past. I heard from an attorney who'd defended on a gun lawsuit in this court, and at the end of plaintiff's case he moved for judgment as a matter of law, since they hadn't proven their claim. Weinstein said he agreed they hadn't proven it, but they could prove it if they were establish this, and that, and the other thing, and he would allow them to reopen their case to prove what he had just ruled would be sufficient!

Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...

· Gun manufacturer liability

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Harry Schell | May 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply

Weinstein doubles as the special master looking after gun shops who reached a deal with Bloomie, IIRC.

He is an anti-gun bigot who I believe to be figuring keeping Bloomie happy is going to pay off sometime, somehow.

straightarrow | May 24, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply

Weinstein is bent.

JCR | May 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply

As you wrote "the city should call", I assume he was the city/plaintiff's witness.

Would it be more strange if Weinstein refused to call a defendant's witness?

As the whole operation seemed to have been orchestrated by Bloomberg (as opposed to by underlings where Bloomberg is just top guy); and as Bloomberg's deposition showed more cluelessness than you'd expect; I think that the defendant ought to call Bloomberg.

Rivrdog | May 25, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply

Is there a Judicial Fitness Commission in New Yawk?

James | May 27, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply

IIRC, Bloomberg was being called as a defense witness. Jay Wllace has posted the tarnscripts at http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com

Leave a comment