In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of DC handgun ban on Thursday, CNN’s "Newsroom" program ran a report on both the sides of the gun case, in which the pro-gun control advocate was given twice the amount of air time as the gun rights advocate. The report, by CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena, ran twice within 20 minutes; first, at the top of the 10 am hour of "Newsroom," minutes before the decision was released, and then immediately after the news of the decision broke.
In addition to this, when the 5-4 decision upholding the lower court’s finding that the ban was unconstitutional, the "Newsroom" program initially ran a graphic that read, "Supreme Ct. Kills Handgun Ban: Overrules DC Law." The graphic ran for just under a minute until being replaced by another that read, "Supreme Ct. Overrules Gun Ban: Overrules DC Law Forbidding Handguns."
Just over an hour after the Supreme Court’s ruling came down, near the bottom half of the 11 am Eastern hour of "Newsroom," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, when asked about the local impact of the decision, snarked that "the communities that care about safety and communities that don't want the bad effects of guns will try to rewrite their regulations in line with what they think the Court decided."
So in Mr. Toobin’s view, communities that recognize the good effects of guns, in terms of self-defense and lowering violent crime rates, must not "care about safety."
Arena’s report gave short profiles of Shelly Parker, one of the DC residents who challenged the constitutionality of the District’s handgun ban; and Elilta Habtu, who "barely survived the Virginia Tech massacre." Arena played two soundbites each from Parker and Habtu, but Parker’s total time in the segment totaled 13 seconds, whereas Habtu’s time totaled 27 seconds, more than twice the amount.
The full transcript of Kelli Arena’s report:
HEIDI COLLINS: As we mentioned, awaiting big news from the Supreme Court on your constitutional right to own a gun. The Supreme Court may finally settle the long debate over the Second Amendment. That ruling expected any time now. Our Kelli Arena and Jeanne Meserve both there covering the story for us. We're going to have that decision for you just as soon as we get it. First, a little background to share with you. It's case with huge political, legal, and personal implications. CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena explains those issues.
KELLI ARENA (voice-over): Two women, two stories, two completely different interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
SHELLY PARKER, GUN RIGHTS PLAINTIFF: I believe the Second Amendment is written for the purpose of allowing individuals to have a gun at their choosing in their home.
ARENA: Shelly Parker says that threats from drug dealers forced her to flee her old neighborhood in Washington, DC. A single woman, she wants a gun to protect herself. But Elilta Habtu says owning a gun is not the answer. She barely survived the Virginia Tech massacre.
ELILTA HABTU VA. TECH SHOOTING VICTIM: Read the Constitution -- that's how it's written -- it's very clear what it says. It says -- the whole sentence -- it says for -- you have the right to hold your arms if you're doing it for militia.
ARENA: It all centers on DC's handgun ban and whether the city can tell residents they can't own a firearm. DC says it has a right to keep its community safe. Parker, a DC resident, says it's her individual right to have a gun if she wants one.
PARKER: Anybody who's a criminal can have a gun, but if you're trying to do the right thing, you don't have a gun, which leaves us prey to everybody else.
ARENA: But Habtu, who still has a bullet lodged near the base of her brain, believes if she had a gun, she would not have survived the Virginia Tech killer's deadly rampage.
HABTU: You have this kind of crazy idea that maybe we're [a] superhero on the inside, you know. If I had a gun, I would have overtaken [him]. No, you wouldn't have. Please, don't feel that, you know, just owning a gun will make you safer, because it won't.
COLLINS (on-camera): Kelli Arena there with some opinions regarding this huge decision that is being discussed as we speak at the Supreme Court....
It should be noted that CNN pitted Parker against Habtu once before, in an article on its website in March when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in DC handgun ban case. As fellow NewsBuster Ken Shepherd noted, the article’s author, Bill Mears, tried to "cast a cloud over the constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
Habtu, in addition to being a "Virginia Tech shooting victim," is also an Obama supporter. She donated a total of $550 to the Democrat’s primary campaign earlier this year, according to FEC filings available here.
"Newsroom" broke the news of the Court’s decision 14 minutes into its 10 am hour, and co-host Tony Harris echoed the "Supreme Ct. Kills Handgun Ban" graphic that appeared on the screen: "We have the Supreme court decision that we've been waiting for on the DC handgun ban, and the Supreme Court, as you can see in the lower third there, has killed the handgun ban, overruling the DC law, ruling that law from DC unconstitutional."
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
they're not killing it,
June 26, 2008 - 12:48 ET by TruthMongerthey're not killing it, just pro-choice:)
What should heppen is that all law-abiding people
June 26, 2008 - 12:56 ET by c5thenWho live in DC should go out and get a gun and learn how to use it properly and confidently. They should all make it a very publicized thing. Put up posters about the neighborhood gun club meetings every Wednesday night at 8:00pm, etc.
The gun violence in DC will plummet because the criminals DO NOT WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FEILD. They will go find the spots that don't have guns so that they have an advantage.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Mmmm
June 26, 2008 - 21:07 ET by GrannyGrump42>>Put up posters about the neighborhood gun club meetings every Wednesday night at 8:00pm, etc.<<
My old boss's neighborhood experienced a series of break-ins. The Neighborhood Watch got on the phone tree and announced "Take Your Gun for a Walk Night". Which was exactly what it sounded like -- law-abiding residents strolling the neighborhood with their legally-owned weapons one evening.
Funny thing -- the break-ins stopped.
Granny... My,
June 26, 2008 - 21:12 ET by bigtimerGranny...
My, my...miracles do happen.
LOL!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Parker v. Habtu
June 26, 2008 - 13:02 ET by SickofLibsElilta Habtu just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot by a random mukker.
Shelly Parker's home was invaded numerous times by armed thugs despite all the security measures she had in place (multiple locks, window bars, dog etc). The DC cops advised her to arm herself as they could not protect her 24/7.
Why Habtu was selected to give testimony before SCOTUS is beyond me. Her unusual (and yes, unfortunate) circumstances were NOT the ying to Parkers yang.
She was selected for the
June 26, 2008 - 14:29 ET by soulpileShe was selected for the sympathy play ("see what guns do?! They're eevil and hurt people."). I don't know, but looking at her situation, I'd be pro-gun anyway.
Maybe Habtu might have ended the violence
June 26, 2008 - 14:40 ET by nkviking75Perhaps if Habtu had a gun and knew how to use it, she'd have wounded or killed that loony and perhaps might have saved other lives.
Unless they can accomplish the impossible and literally remove every gun from the planet, plus finding an effective way to keep guns from ever being made again, the gun-banners only succeed tilting the odds in any confrontation to the outlaws.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I'm sorry, not to impugn
June 27, 2008 - 01:44 ET by soulpileI'm sorry, not to impugn the vicitim of a shooting, but if she had some training and proper knowledge and respect for guns, I doubt she'd feel the same way about taking guns away from the citizens, even if she didn't carry a gun herself. (In short, I agree with the above.)
People kill, guns are just the tools. Take away one tool, a killer will find another to take its place.
Media Manipulation
June 26, 2008 - 13:04 ET by AgentAmericanHabtu is being used by the leftist media. An armed undercover cop on the scene would have stopped the mass murder that day. Right now, the rat b*stards in the government are not having a good day. Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosinsane are already spewing their displeasure.
Lefties who secretly love child rapists are feeling the sting today.
Drill ANWAR
Fear
June 26, 2008 - 13:32 ET by ScrapironMembers of the American Communist Party (aka democrats) have reason to fear Patriotic Americans with guns. The tax them to death King learned that lesson the hard way many years ago. I think the day to celebrate that action is next week, brought to you by the guts and guns of true Americans. A repeat appears to be required in the near future
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Awesome T-shirt
June 26, 2008 - 15:05 ET by Eileen RightFreedom, brought to you by the guts and guns of true Americans.
The French alone should be required to buy 2 per person.
Habatu has a point....
June 26, 2008 - 13:34 ET by c5thenShe is right, but having a gun and knowing how to use it and having it available when you need it WILL make you safer.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Another bias trick
June 26, 2008 - 13:58 ET by KC MulvilleThe report allowed the anti-gun critic to 'answer' what the pro-gun supporter said, but not the reverse.
We also have Habtu's assertions that if she had a gun, she wouldn't have survived the VaTech spree. Obviously, we have no proof of that. It's just an emotional assumption. Maybe she wouldn't have been able to stop the guy, but perhaps someone else would have. We also have her emotional plea that "Please, don't feel that, you know, just owning a gun will make you safer, because it won't." Again, that's her conviction, but it proves nothing.
Any time a reporter resorts to emotion instead of facts and analysis, it means the facts are against her preferred point of view.
Duh!
June 26, 2008 - 21:11 ET by GrannyGrump42>>Logically, at this point, the reporter should have offered some cold, hard facts to give the viewer a fact-based perspective, and not just showing emotions. What are the crime rates among comparable areas where one city has strict gun control where the other doens't? What are the actual statistics on violent crime where handguns are banned versus where they're allowed? Or some reasonable statistics or historical analysis. Anything. Instead, we got assurances from a victim that simply offer her assumptions, but no proof.<<
Hey, it works, right?
Like when they try to drum up sympathy for late-term abortionists. They'll find one of the less than 1% of women who aborted for some fetal indication, and rather than find one that aborted for Down Syndrome or cleft palate or a missing finger, they'll keep searching until they find one whose unborn baby really had some heinous problem. They'll trot her out as if she's representative of late-aborters. No mention of the fact that she's in the teensiest minority, no mention of the fact that perinatal hospice is avialable. Just trying to do an emotion-manipulating, "Leave these poor women and their moribund babies in peace" bit, so that the abortionists can leave the maximum number of babies in pieces.
An un-necessary suit
June 26, 2008 - 13:59 ET by pocomocoThe gun suit should never have reached the Supreme Court, and the judge allowing it to go forward should have been reprimanded because it went directly against the Constitution.
But, what probably occurred, those bringing the suit judge-shopped until it reached the Supreme Court, at which time the SCOTUS should have refused to hear the suit.
Also, those opposed to the suit should have, themselves, judge-shopped by asking a judge on the Supreme Court to render a decision long before it reached the full court.
Today, as a result of the decision, and paraphrasing the reporterette, she made the following astonishing statement that: “once again the Constitution gets in the way of public policy."
Is it any wonder why the MSM are considered no better than bird-gage liners or fish wrappers.
As one of the NB commentors says: there's no use being stupid unless you can prove it. I believe the MSM are proving it, in spades, every day.
poco... I disagree with
June 26, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Clear thinkerpoco...
I disagree with you. Having this go to the SC and considering the decision handed down today was the correct one, I'm happy because it settles this issue for at least another 20 or 30 years. And there's not a damn thing the liberals can do about it. So all in all, it was a good thing to get that far IMHO.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CNN shows amazing poster on web page
June 26, 2008 - 14:04 ET by c5thenBeing held by what looks like an older teen or a young adult, is a poster that says: "If Guns kill people...Do pens misspell Words?"
Absolutely priceless! Must be home schooled.
CNN.com
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Other Bad Headlines
June 26, 2008 - 14:09 ET by mbs6I saw today, "Supreme Court Shoots Down DC Gun Ban"
When Roe v. Wade passed, did the headlines read, "Supreme Court Aborts Pro-Life Laws" ?
Or...
June 26, 2008 - 14:25 ET by FoolicanOr "Supreme Court Fondles Child Rapist Death Penalty Laws"?
Or...
June 26, 2008 - 16:37 ET by ontheright..."Supreme Court Terrorist decision, Bombs"...
Funny
June 26, 2008 - 17:35 ET by mbs6LOL
Or...
June 26, 2008 - 17:39 ET by mbs6"Environmental Case Against Exxon Runs Aground at Supreme Court"
Great News BUT -----
June 26, 2008 - 15:34 ET by w0tmThis is great news but a 5 to 4 decision on a right so clear and basic plainly outlined in our constitution means to me several things:
1. Four of the justices really do subscribe to the belief of a "Living Constitution" touted by the left for 50 years. Basically our rights are what five justices say they are and they change based on "our changing society". Nothing is safe from government. Government should fear the people, not the other way around.
2. Assuming we have a president Obama and based on the ages of many of the justices we will have a MoveOn.Org Supreme Court by 2010.
3. Our first and second amendments will be the first to be neutered then the others will be altered to suit the whim of the court and the far left.
4. We can celebrate today BUT, in a few years, we are probably "toast" as a country. Neutered and Balkanized. Slaves in our own land. Who would have ever imagined in so few years.
The longer I live--
June 26, 2008 - 15:37 ET by misterbillThe longer I live--the less I expect to be surprised at the logic of my fellow passengers here in the USA. It hasn't worked that way. Every day I am amazed how some people arrive at illogical conclusions. Today it is Ms Habtu. She needs a little help in defining a militia. One very simple defintition (Heritage) is:
There are, of course, more detailed definitions but this is one of them. Next, to believe that if she had a gun she would be dead begs the point against gun usage--WITHOUT ONE- she was damned near dead anyway. She has a bullet in her brain! Who then, or what would save her??? A gun ban??? Then what, a machete ban, then a hunting knife ban and finally a Swiss Army knife ban??? Forks can be used to kill. Yes, I understand that a semi-automatic weapon or a hand gun will, most likely kill more people than a tennis racket. I thought the issue was safety, not the capability of a weapon to kill a lot of people at once.
Perhaps I am a little offbase here, but I believe it boils down to a liberal thought process that if big Mommy government makes gun ownership illegal we will all be safe.
misterb... Youre not
June 26, 2008 - 15:46 ET by bigtimermisterb...
Youre not off-base..I agree.
I was going to take the time and insert what you did regarding Habtu's comments... I got side-tracked.
Anway...you did it much better than I could of today anyway.
I agree with your summation too.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT--thanks
June 26, 2008 - 15:55 ET by misterbillFrom time to time , I like to post this excerpt:
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
If you can't get a gun...
June 26, 2008 - 21:20 ET by GrannyGrump42Supposedly gun bans take guns away from nutjobs who want a bloodbath.
So, instead of a shooting spree, we could have another Our Lady of the Angels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_School_Fire
92 children and three nuns killed. But none of them suffered gunshot wounds. No harm, no foul, right?
Or, we could get a replay of the Bath School bombings:
http://en.wikipedia....
45 dead. Most of them elementary school kids.
To be fair, the guy DID use a gun -- to detonate explosives in the back seat of his car, killing himself, three other adults, and one child. But NONE of the victims died of gunshot wounds. So I guess this is far preferable to what went down at Virginia Tech.
NRA membership? hide your guns?
June 26, 2008 - 17:38 ET by w0tmAm I worrying too much that I am on record as an NRA member and my state has records of my gun ownership? Should everyone who values the second amendment remain (or join) a member or quit and ask that their name be removed from all NRA records? I'm serious BTW. I would continue to support the NRA but with cash donations.
England went from a modestly armed citizenry to defenseless in two short years with virtually no protests. People meekly turned in their guns when told to do so in the early 90's. As did Australia. Crime statistics have gone wild there since then. English robbery at gunpoint has quadrupled (it had been going down) and home burglary at gunpoint with the occupants home have gone from 8% to over 80%!!! The burglars WANT the occupants home to show them where hidden valuables are kept.
Murders of burglary victims is up by like 1,000%. The U.S. statistic is still 8% (and dropping) by the way. Dropping as more and more states pass right to carry and other pro-gun laws. But they can all be swept away with the hand of one demagogue president with a congress rubber stamping his every pronouncement. We may be Cuba North within two years. I am 61 and, for the first time in my life, fear that my country is about to be conquered by the "fifth column" we've had among us for 50 years.
One woman in England who was being robbed and about to be raped got to her gun she had hidden from the "gun police" and shot the attempted rapist in the leg. What happened? You can Google it for the details. The attempted rapist sued and won her house and all she owned. All charges were dropped against him since he did not remove anything from the property and she stopped the rape before it could occur. And the ACLU was not even needed! English law did not give her the chance to appeal. She now sits in her cell penniless waiting to be released in 2016.
The criminal had a long history of crime and always being let off on technicalities. He now lives in the 300K pound house he now owns but the entire neighborhood has moved out rather than live close to him. She was found guilty of using more force than he was (knife against gun). Truly surreal but look it up if you like.
She is two years into a ten year sentence and he probably continues his "trade" except he now has a nice house, car, etc. to aid his "craft".
Yes, the world has gone crazy. If we have a president Obama, the "living constitution" praised by the far left will suddenly be in full bloom and "the law" will be whatever they decide it will be.
Is is time to hide our guns? Personally, I plan to follow Charlton Hesston's famous quote. It would have been smarter for me to have bought my guns at gun shows many years ago so they wouldn't be registered (at least you could do that here years ago - no paperwork required).
But all of mine were purchased after passing state approval of me and the gun. Will we be as meek as they were in England? Here is one person who will not be "meek". For the few who keep hidden guns, do they stand to receive severe penalties for simply protecting themselves and their families with now illegal guns. Yes, the world has gone mad. Truly mad.
"For the few who keep
June 26, 2008 - 19:27 ET by amber"For the few who keep hidden guns, do they stand to receive severe penalties for simply protecting themselves and their families with now illegal guns."
That is one reason why I own a shovel and 20 acres out back.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
amber... Smart girl. I
June 26, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Clear thinkeramber...
Smart girl.
I wish you were around when my son was looking for a wife. Things worked out so well (cough-cough) between he and his first wife that my wife and I now have to raise our granddaughter.
And because you seem like a very smart girl, I will never put you in contact with my son. Consider it an early Birthday gift.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT... ROFLMAO! You are
June 26, 2008 - 19:40 ET by bigtimerCT...
ROFLMAO!
You are on a roll tonight...
I know you weren't talking to me, just got back from serving dinner and saw this...too funny.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt...
June 26, 2008 - 19:43 ET by Clear thinkerI'm in a pretty good mood tonight and have been all day. The decision by the Supreme Court on gun bans is a blessing and I am enjoying it for at least one full day. I'm sure the libe will piss me off tomorrow.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CNN "dead wrong"
June 26, 2008 - 18:08 ET by wdhorningFBI statistics show that 1.5 million times per year serious crimes of robbery, rape and murder are deterred merely by brandishing a gun.
Is CNN editorial board?:
- a bunch of "sissies" too scared to handle and carry a gun
- "control freaks" that want government to dictate socialistic behavior, and only to a liberal drum beat, ignoring the fact that 38 states and the vast majority of Americans believe they have the right to be armed for self-defense
- "utopian nuts" who think war is stopped by disarming countries and crime stopping by NOT allowing citizens to defend themselves
- "hypocrites" who will hire armed guards to protect themselves, because they can afford it, while common citizens have no way to stop a mugging, rape, robbery or murder of self, even if they can afford a few hundred for safety and shooting classes and a gun purchase
- "failed school students" who fail to understand the whole basis for citizens rights to own and bear arms from American history, the basis for the 32nd Amendment
They are just "dead wrong."
>>the communities that care
June 26, 2008 - 21:03 ET by GrannyGrump42>>the communities that care about safety and communities that don't want the bad effects of guns will try to rewrite their regulations in line with what they think the Court decided."<<
They've been GETTING the bad effects of guns for 32 years. Now they're gonna get a taste of the GOOD effects.
Good for the community, that is. Bad for criminals. Bad for gun-grabbers who will be turning into ever-more-skilled contortionists in their need to twist the upcoming reduced crime rate into some sort of bad news.