Lying—it’s all they know

Via John Richardson we find the anti-gun bigots attempted to do one of their usual tricks of twisting the facts. This time it was in the Chicago “assault weapon” ban and they got caught:

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Appellate Court defense of the county gun ban (Wilson, et. al. v. Cook County, et. al.)  got off to a bad start when briefs filed by the county before the First District Appellate Court were found to contain factual errors.  More specifically, these factual errors included the misquoting of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago cases.  (The ISRA was a Plaintiff in McDonald).  When these errors were brought to light by the plaintiffs, the county hastily filed a motion to withdraw the erroneous briefs in favor of amended versions.  Presently, the plaintiffs in the case have moved to strike the amended briefs as the amendments do not remedy the ramifications of the misquotes contained in the original set of briefs.  In fact the County may have used their own “errors” to further violate the Court’s rules and to additional arguments and bolster existing arguments in their amended brief.

“We find it interesting that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office would blame ‘electronic errors’ for the tainting of its briefs with misquotes,” commented ISRA spokesman, Richard Pearson.  “This situation is made all the more curious given that the misquotes would fundamentally alter the intent of two landmark Supreme Court decisions – D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.  In the county’s briefs, the two high court decisions are erroneously quoted as addressing ‘common handguns’ whereas the decisions, as written, do not contain the phrase ‘common handguns.’  There is a clear difference when one addresses handguns versus ‘common’ handguns in that the latter would drastically reduce the types of firearms whose ownership is protected under the Second Amendment.”

“If I were a cynic,” continued Pearson, “I’d suggest that these ‘electronic errors’ were just poorly executed attempts by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office to re-write the Heller and McDonald decisions more to Mayor Daley’s liking.”

How can anyone not see the bigotry in these actions? How is this any different than the way the politicians of 50 to 70 years ago in the deep south kept the blacks repressed? They have been shown to be in violation of the highest law of the land and yet they continue to resist conforming to it “dragging their feet” and lying every step of the way.

At what point are we going to finally send in the U.S. Marshalls and National Guard to arrest these bigots and/or force them into compliance?

In a somewhat related post see Sebastian’s post where he asks, “How long before the gig is up, and even the die hards realize it?” I think the U.S. Marshalls arresting the politicians enforcing unconstitional laws would pretty much cause even the most dimwitted to get realize the exit light was glowing.

13 thoughts on “Lying—it’s all they know

  1. I’m confused. Is this a court case? Or is this the wording on a legislative ban? If it’s a court case, they should be allowed to amend (or correct) the brief since they misquoted the original case. Why would they not be allowed to? Precedent isn’t set by misquotes — it’s set due to the real quotes from the original case. Misquoting is sloppy but I can’t see how it is illegal. Judges don’t make rulings based on briefs anyway. Judges go back and do their own research.

  2. It is a court case. The brief contained “quotes” that were incorrect.

    To the best of my knowledge it’s not illegal but it might be grounds for sanctions by the bar for ethical violations.

    I switched contexts without making it clear. The illegal acts are the continued attempts at passing and enforcing laws which any reasonable person could see are unconstitutional but haven’t been declared as such by a higher court yet. Requiring a license that takes months to acquire to exercise a constitutional right wouldn’t be tolerated for a second if the right in question were freedom of speech or religion.

    Historically I think you are right OC probably can’t be restricted and CC can. It’s not what I would like but I think it would be hard to argue a constitutional case against that position.

  3. I’d argue that “bear” does not imply any restrictions on the manner of so doing–hence CC would also be non-licenseable. But that’s just me.

  4. More specifically, these factual errors included the misquoting of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago cases.

    …but these cases are barely a handful of years old! how do you even manage to misquote cases so prominent, so recent, so widely available, and so utterly relevant to your own?!

    “electronic errors”, indeed. do they mean to say CTRL-V pasted something other than what CTRL-C copied?

    hell, i’m a good-for-little loser myself, and i’d not make such a blatantly incompetent mistake as that. if i really had to fudge something like this, i’d just conveniently “forget” to quote the cases in question. misquoting such trivially easily checked stuff… what were they thinking?

  5. I think the U.S. Marshalls arresting the politicians enforcing unconstitional laws would pretty much cause even the most dimwitted to get realize the exit light was glowing.

    I couldn’t agree more Joe. Unfortunately I think we’ve got quite a ways to go before we start seeing anti-gunners led away in cuffs.

  6. “I’d argue that “bear” does not imply any restrictions on the manner of so doing–hence CC would also be non-licenseable. But that’s just me.”

    Nope, I agree. Also I’d point out that one can argue that certain modes of carry are much more difficult in certain circumstances. Like Conceal carrying in Florida in August. Sure you can drop a little pocket gun in your shorts, or some such thing. But can we all afford several different carry guns? Also what if you want to carry a long gun? That was VERY common in the founding days, and I have friends in Alaska where a simple hike in the woods, or a walking of the dog means a shotgun filled with slugs is tossed over a shoulder. Can’t really conceal that.

    Conversely try openly carrying a gun in the Northern states in the dead of winter. All the layers, you’ll likely be covering up your gun, or need special clothes to keep your gun exposed.

    As I tell people, Heller and McDonald were simply defending the “Keep” part of the 2nd Amendment. More will need to be done for the “and Bear” part.

  7. “Historically I think you are right OC probably can’t be restricted and CC can. It’s not what I would like but I think it would be hard to argue a constitutional case against that position.”

    What would this mean to “shall issue” states and to those like Arizona that allow anyone to CCW? I can see the Brady bunch attacking both of these.

    I’m not crazy about OC but at least you can see who has the guns.

  8. ubu52, no, if OC is the rule, you can only see which of the law-abiding men and women have guns. Criminals are not going to comply — and they’ll know when no one around them is armed. What will you do in the elevator when one of them draws and asks for your money — or your life? Or for something in-between? Will you lie back and think of England?

  9. I wonder how ubu manages to live outside of her home, considering that there are cops around her (fallible humans with guns) and OH GOSH the privileged few with CCW licenses!

  10. “if OC is the rule, you can only see which of the law-abiding men and women have guns.”

    That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? That’s why there are a lot of cases on the books where courts ruled against concealed carry.

Comments are closed.