Quote of the Day: None of That is True Edition

483437012_640

“When used, (assault) weapons tend to result in more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims. These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings. They are also disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers.” – Judge Jose A. Carbranes in US Appeals Court Upholds Gun Laws After Newtown Massacre [at abcnews.go.com]

[h/t JT]

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Black-Robed Tyrants, TL;DR version: “We’re just making ish up as we go along, now.

    1. avatar hobbez says:

      So, a judge hands down a ruling, not by interpreting the law and the Constitution, but by citing flat-out lies and personal beliefs.

      Isn’t that a basis for disbarment by the BAR’s own rules? Why is there no system in place to remove a judge when he violates his oath?

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        So, a judge hands down a ruling, not by interpreting the law and the Constitution, but by citing flat-out lies and personal beliefs.

        Ultimately, that’s what happens when the Judiciary asserts its authority to exercise “judicial review” over a natural right that is constitutionally protected against any and all infringement. Personally, I think that the written opinion fails to document the evidence to support even the intermediate scrutiny basis that it asserts; but it would be equally unconstitutional, if weighed against strict scrutiny.

        1. avatar Felix says:

          What a load! The problem is not the judiciary asserting a right to review natural rights. The problem is the legislature explicitly not following the constitution OR natural rights, and the judiciary explicitly refusing to do its duty to strike down such legislative oversteps.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Chip Bennett: Exactly.

        3. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

          Chip, don’t blame the judiciary. The founding fathers knew well the risk and included the mechanisms to mitigate it.

          Most are aware that Congress can impeach federal judges, but Article III give them far more power than that. They have the power to regulate the federal judiciary as it deems necessary with regard to its appellate jurisdiction. This regulation is not subject to presidential veto.

          Blame Congress for the judicial tyranny we see today. And blame those who continue to empower these hack by voting for them.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Scalia does it, and that sort of sets an example.

    2. avatar Lone Ranger says:

      Pretty much. Just imagine what kind of crap they are going to do if they get a liberal majority on the SCOTUS? Basically they will get the 2A and/or ignore it.

      I already suspect that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case on the SAFE act because likely they would find against it and can’t have that. They’ve already determined that “firearms in common use” can’t be banned and would likely end up overturning that rather than angering the NY Eurocrat-wannabes.

  2. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    #facepalm

    Pretty much every statement of “fact” he makes is 180 degrees from the truth.

    1. avatar Chadwick P. says:

      Such is the case with the arguments of any good marxist.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Pretty much every statement of “fact” he makes is 180 degrees from the truth a lie.

      There, fixed that for you.

      1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

        Thank you sir. A good editor is worth his weight in gold.

  3. avatar James says:

    Feelings over facts by a liberal progressive. What a surprise! Unless Black Lives Matter has taken to using assault weapons to ambush cops or he’s extrapolating the Brian Terry murder (brought to you by the US Department of Justice and the Obama Administration) into a blanket trend, it is extremely rare, but he wants to get his way so rule of law and Constitution be damned.

  4. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Wow, my eyes hurt from reading this. How can a judge make this stuff up, isn’t he supposed to be non-partial, unbiased, and review evidence?

    1. avatar hobbez says:

      I always thought that a judges job was to interpret the law, not campaign like an activist against things he personally dislikes. Guess I was taught wrong……

  5. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Frontal Assault on the Second Ammendment with ink, lies and logic failure. And we’re just sitting taking what legistalotors and judges impose.

  6. avatar Charles Ray says:

    Democrats pick up their “knowledge” of firearms from TV shows and movies. Exclusively. On Morning Joe last week, Mika claimed that an AR 15 can “blow up” a deer. Literally. She literally believes this.

  7. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    The stupid is strong in this one.

  8. avatar Joe R. says:

    Inappropriately wielded authority disproportionately subdues, subjects, and tyrannically subjugates its fellow citizens.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “These [military style] weapons are disproportionately used in crime …” – Judge Jose A. Carbranes

    That is true … criminals use military style firearms in about 1% or less of crimes.

  10. avatar Fred says:

    Modern sporting rifles are disproportionately used in crime and killing police officers in that the proportion is so small compared to handguns it rounds down to zero. I guess the Supreme Court laid down the new law of the land, words don’t mean what they used to mean, they mean what you want them to mean in the moment.

  11. Is there some way to contact this judge to correct him? This is… grossly under-researched, obviously, and while it’s ruled on already, it just seems like the kind of thing we shouldn’t just sit back and complain about…

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      There’s the appeals process, which is being pursued, but as for directly refuting the judge, there’s really only the press and public opinion. That has an effect, but unfortunately it’s usually more effective in securing this type of ruling, not in preventing it.

      Had this judge done his job competently and abided by his oath of office honestly, he would’ve struck down the entire act as unconstitutional. The whole of the NY and national press would have pilloried him, though. Thus, Judge Spineless issued this ruling.

      This same effect is how so-called constitutional scholar CJ John Roberts gave us Obamacare. He didn’t want he and his wife to be shunned on the DC cocktail party circuit.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “When used, (assault) weapons tend to result in more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims.” – Judge Jose A. Carbranes

    I do not agree with the truthfulness of that statement. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us say that statement is true. Of course Judge Carbranes is implying that we should ban military style firearms because they “create more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims” than other firearms when a spree killer attacks. And that implication would be totally and utterly wrong. The judge would be horrified to see what would happen if a spree killer used a .45-70 Government lever-action rifle loaded with hardcast lead bullets. Each hardcast lead bullet would easily kill between 6 and 12 young children in a crowd … and anywhere from 4 to 10 adults in a crowd. Keeping in mind that readily available lever-action rifles in .45-70 Government can hold 6 rounds in their tube magazine, a spree killer wielding one of those could easily kill between 36 and 72 young children without reloading.

    And similar results are possible with a lever-action rifle in .44 Magnum shooting hardcast lead bullets. Each bullet could kill between 4 and 8 young children in a crowd and anywhere from 3 to 6 adults in a crowd. A common lever-action rifle in .44 Magnum has a 10 round tube magazine which means a spree killer, using that rifle, could easily kill between 40 and 80 young children — or alternately between 30 and 60 adults — without reloading.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Dyspeptic Gunsmith’s favorite Revolutionary War era rifle, the ‘Girardoni air rifle’, had a standard magazine of 20 rounds that could be shot consecutively without reloading.

      Perhaps it’s not a coincidence the Girardoni air rifle and the Glock 19 were both invented and manufactured in Austria…

      H’mmm…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        EDIT-

        Make that “Early American Frontier”, not “Revolutionary War era” rifle …

  13. avatar Higgs says:

    It’s not possible to correct most judges since they believe they know everything.

    What’s the difference between God and a judge? God does not think he is a judge…….

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      No, the difference between God and a judge is that God really does know everything.

    2. avatar scoutino says:

      The Christian god IS an ultimate judge.

  14. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    The 2nd Circuit also made an interesting ruling on economic favoritism in legislation. If your not already sick to your stomach enough, see their Sensational Smiles, LLC v. Mullen ruling. Reason.com, of course, covers it.

  15. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    You’ll sleep more soundly knowing that this Clinton appointed solon is also protecting your liberties as a member of the three-judge United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review –
    The court that reviews FISA court ” denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants (called FISA warrants)”
    Since 1979 there have been all of 12 denials out of 35,529 requests for surveillance warrants.
    How’s that for the vigorous protection of the 4th amendment?

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things …”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_A._Cabranes

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals basically said that state and federal governments can ban semi-automatic firearms and establish arbitrary limits on magazine capacity … although governments cannot establish arbitrary limits on how many rounds of ammunition an individual can load in a magazine.

    Oh, and in upholding government bans on semi-automatic firearms, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals also said that governments can ban “unusual” firearms, where “unusual” means the most popular type of rifle in the United States.

    This decision is total and complete garbage. It unequivocally declares, at best, that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is corrupt, and at worst that our entire Judicial branch is corrupt.

  17. avatar 2Asux says:

    The “real story” here is not the inventive use of truth. The “real story” lies in one comment by the judge, “…”important — indeed, compelling — state interest in controlling crime.” We have the central government determining which weapons are acceptable for use in keeping the government from becoming an absolute tyranny. The quote above justifies the government declaring that any activity can be prohibited if it is considered “controlling crime”. This doctrine would declare that the constitution is not a check on government, but a document facilitating the control of citizens by the central government. “Compelling interest” is not new, but is becoming more frequently the single justification for government action against the population.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      And the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a check on government restrictions of certain rights due to compelling interests. Oops.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Yes, but the courts are dismantling the amendments in favor of one “compelling interest” or another. Simply, the courts believe the central government has a compelling interest in regulating every aspect of life, to provide safety, security and order. Even to the point of ruling that if government wants to regulate so that people “feel safe” (whether they are, or not), that is sufficient reason to determine a governmental compelling interest.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          My point exactly. They are doing what the BoR was intended to prevent.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Hence the delicious oxymoron of the central government deciding which means of constraining the central government will be tolerated by the central government

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Through a power not delegated to them in the Constitution.

  18. avatar Grindstone says:

    The reason that smelled so bad was because all of it was pulled directly out of his own ass.

  19. avatar gsnyder says:

    We live in a world of accelerating information which often has a very short life span. It appears there is an increase with the power of, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Emotional reactions are seemingly accepted to equate to facts. Hysteria is shock and humans remember shock value. This may explain the outrageous overt lies spewed at maximum amplitude.

  20. avatar Publius says:

    We need a new law / amendment instituting new rules for politicians and judges. If you cannot demonstrate solid knowledge on a topic (guns, economics, etc) you cannot rule on / vote for laws regarding that topic. All of our bad laws come from retards with know idea what they’re talking about going “YEAH, THIS SOUNDS GOOD!”.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      We ought to have a law that states government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

  21. avatar Calvin says:

    [Citation Needed]

  22. avatar Dustin says:

    A Judge making blatantly fraudulent fraudulent statements one upon another? Using it to reach his conclusions instead of facts and law? No. It couldn’t be… Again. Still…

  23. avatar Bob Bacon says:

    If these cunts succeeded in banning ARs, then the very next day, they would start claiming the same things about “handguns”, and all the statistics of the last 20 years would miraculously show that “handguns are the problem” and “handguns are killing our officers”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email