Anti-gun Group
Applauds Their Own Defeat
from Angel Shamaya
October 16, 2001
KeepAndBearArms.com -- The Violence Policy
Center wasted no time in misrepresenting Tuesday's 5th circuit court ruling in
the U.S. vs. Emerson case. Their press
release issued immediately upon the ruling borders on lunacy. Below
are quotes from their report, followed by facts they either missed or refuse to
comment on because they refute claims made by the group.
VPC said:
"The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today applauded the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson."
FACT: VPC's
amicus brief to the court said there is no individual right to keep and bear
arms. Meanwhile, the ruling VPC "applauds" produced the strongest
"individual right" arguments ever to come from a federal circuit court. For
example:
VPC
attempts, consistently, to use US v Miller to "prove" that
the second amendment is a collective right.
Emerson says,
"Miller Does Not Support Collective Right Model" -- and backs up the
statement with tremendous, irrefutable evidence to support the claim.
VPC
attempts, consistently, to say the second amendment is about the National
Guard. In their incorrigible press release after the Emerson ruling, they said
the language of the second amendment "speaks in terms of a limited right
to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a state militia."
Emerson says,
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is
an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping
arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select
militia such as the National Guard."
The VPC's perpetual lies about the second
amendment were soundly defeated in court, their history-ignorant amicus brief
destroyed. Their inaccurate arguments against the
second amendment have been shattered beyond recognition. The Supreme Court now
has a scholarly body of information to consider when the second amendment issue
hits their courtroom -- all thanks to the 5th circuit judges who just ruled in
U.S. vs. Emerson.
Shall we honestly take VPC's inauthentic
"applauding" seriously? Does anyone really take
them seriously anyway?
And there's more:
VPC said:
"...the judges rejected the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees
domestic abusers an individual right to keep and bear arms..."
The judges actually said:
"...the predicate order in question here is sufficient, albeit likely
minimally so, to support the deprivation, while it remains in effect, of the
defendant's Second Amendment rights."
There is a big difference in the two. And Dr.
Emerson can still appeal. If he does appeal -- all the way to
the Supreme Court -- gun owners have the most strongly worded and thoroughly
presented case for the individual right to keep and bear arms we have seen from
a federal ruling. And such a hearing by SCOTUS would necessarily address
the nature of the second amendment, considering the very ruling VPC
"applauds."
Also noteworthy is the fact that Dr. Emerson
was never even charged with domestic abuse, let alone convicted -- and every
charge against him except the gun possession issue was dropped. VPC's calling
Dr. Emerson a "domestic abuser" absent an accusation of and conviction
for domestic abuse is libelous.
But what else would you expect from people who
openly and repeatedly call for all-out bans on guns and lie
repeatedly in hopes of achieving their objectives?
And perhaps the most absurd statement in VPC's
"press release" involves yet another slur against gun rights
advocates:
"Today the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals rejected the sweeping arguments of the gun lobby that the Second
Amendment guarantees domestic abusers an individual right to possess a gun."
We have never seen any gun rights advocacy
organization say that "the Second Amendment guarantees domestic abusers an
individual right to possess a gun." To the contrary, even strident
constitutional purists tend to agree that someone actively engaging in violent
acts against others -- like known and proven domestic abusers, for
example -- should be brought to full and swift justice. The contention
of most liberty advocates surrounding mandatory gun possession prohibitions
under restraining orders is that there needs to be a trial by jury and a
conviction before constitutional rights are removed.
And from the text of the ruling, it appears
that Dr. Emerson didn't cross-examine his wife or depose anyone else in his own
defense, so there is not a clear ruling that a mandatory domestic violence
restraining order prohibition will stand in the next case that comes along,
either.
While a host of VPC's favorite falsehoods were
soundly disproved in the 5th circuit court, gun rights advocates have a
rock-solid federal ruling in clear support of the individual right of the people
to keep and bear arms. So who really won in the Emerson case, VPC? Think real
hard, and keep applauding your own ignorance.
If you are interested in reading more about the
lies and distortions from the "Violence Policy Center," go here:
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/VPC.
They seem to tell a couple of whoppers every week or two these days, so be
certain to check back to watch that archive expand. As long as VPC exists, we
will have lies and distortions to address.
Related Reading
