Reporting on Mayor Adrian Fenty (D-D.C.) and his decision to appeal a gun rights case to the Supreme Court, the Washington Post failed to consult any of the half-dozen citizens of the District of Columbia who won the lawsuit in federal Circuit Court four months earlier.
Reporter David Nakamura quickly revealed to readers that the liberal mayor was couching his appeal as an effort to protect the citizens of the gun-crime-plagued city.
The District will ask the Supreme Court to uphold its strict 30-year handgun ban, setting up what legal experts said could be a test of the Second Amendment with broad ramifications.
The high court has not ruled on the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms since 1939. But at a morning news conference yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Attorney General Linda Singer said they expect the court to hear a case they called crucial to public safety.
A few grafs later, Nakamura quoted Fenty, who heads the city government that was the losing party to Parker v. District of Columbia. That's fair enough, Fenty is the guy taking the case to the High Court, he should be quoted first. But what about this Parker fellow?
He was nowhere to be found in Nakamura's article, although Post reporter Paul Duggan gave readers of the Post a glimpse into Palmer's plight in a March 18 article. Of the six plaintiffs on the case, libertarian and Cato Institute constitutional lawyer Robert Levy knew just one:
Tom G. Palmer, 50, a Cato colleague who is gay. Years ago in California, Palmer said, he brandished a pistol to scare off several men who he feared were about to attack him because of his sexual orientation. He said he wants to be able to legally defend himself in his Washington home.
A gay man in a liberal, gay-friendly city wants to be able to protect himself from armed assailants rather than roll the dice waiting for D.C.'s Metropolitan Police. Fair enough, but you had to have read the March article by Duggan to get that. Nakamura didn't get comment from Palmer, nor any of the other two men and three women that are party to the lawsuit for today's story.
According to Duggan, the group filing suit are diverse:
They went with three men and three women, from their mid-20s to early 60s, four of them white and two black. They found a mortgage broker from Georgetown and a neighborhood activist in a crime-scarred area of Northeast Washington. They also lined up a communications lawyer, a government office worker and a courthouse security guard. In their disparate walks of life, the six shared an eagerness to arm themselves.
Nakamura did quote from Parker's attorney, Alan Gura, but gave him only enough ink to render a sound bite about his hope for a favorable outcome.
By contrast, Nakamura cited pro-Fenty "constitutional law experts" to blithely dismiss the merits of the case.
"This is not a law which takes away the rights to keep and bear arms... It regulates one kind of weapon: handguns," insisted former acting solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III.
If one substitutes language in there about freedom of press or speech and you see the laughability of that statement, but no rebuttal was allowed of Parker or any pro-gun advocate.
The bottom line: A diverse group of citizens are arguing that government is abusing its power by depriving their liberty and endangering their safety at the same time. Were this a case about "wiretapping" by the Bush administration, the plight of the aggrieved here might get more ink. Not so when the case at hand is a gun ban that the Washington Post itself has repeatedly endorsed in its editorial pages.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Washington Post didn't
July 17, 2007 - 12:56 ET by BeanManThe Washington Post didn't give both sides of the story? I'm shocked...okay, I'm over my shock.
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
Your signature line is very
July 17, 2007 - 13:00 ET by Ken ShepherdYour signature line is very apropos given the topic of the blog post.
True. And considering the
July 17, 2007 - 13:17 ET by sarcasmoTrue. And considering the fact that I've always advocated a traditional .44 magnum solution to any & all "gay-bashing" violence, I'm happy to see everything here. It's "game on" and the case hits the Supremes on Sept. 5th, so I guess we can expect some sort of school shooting between now and then...
JMR
Unfortunately, you are
July 18, 2007 - 10:20 ET by SoftRightUnfortunately, you are probably right, Sarcasmo..... With 300 million people in America, some sociopath will commit an otherwise unremarkable crime in the sea of crimes in this country and the media will celebrate it as a reason for the Supremes to rule against the 2nd Amendment..... Hopefully they are above such influence, but as we all know, the "sheeple" are easily mislead.
I work and play in one of the most dangerous cities in America, St. Louis (oddly enough I choose to live in one of the Top 25 zip codes, can't remember who's list it was.... way out in the far burbs). Just this weekend a young couple were carjacked and held for ransom 2 blocks from my office by some misguided "young men" from East STL. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, I have decided to take my chances with a jury rather than trust the goodwill of the criminal sub-class.
Another classic example of
July 17, 2007 - 13:01 ET by mattmAnother classic example of bias by omission. Any first year journalism student would lose points for this obvious failure... But the MSM does this constantly. Now, if their "error" favored one side at one time and the other side another time, then we could conclude they're merely incompetent. But when it consistently favors one side over the other, we can only conclude bias.
And, no, it's not a conspiracy, it's just what happens when 90% of the media are Liberals and very few of them put their professionalism ahead of their agenda. Ask a journalism student why they're in that field and they will tell you it's because they want to "make a difference"...Well that's not a journalist's job, that's the job of a propagandist.
Very profound comment
July 17, 2007 - 13:23 ET by FastEdThey have also forgotten the questions that need to be answered - my drum beat will continue, about the cowardly way todays "journalists" treat their audience, by not letting us know the who, what, where, when, how and maybe why - Seems that isn't important enough for these future novel writers.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
DC's gun ban doesn't conflict with the 2nd Amendment?
July 17, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Carbon SasquatchUnder DC law, the only arms you can legally keep and bear are the
ones that grow from your upper torso. Handguns are banned
outright and long guns must be disassembled. Also remember that
the first Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment, in the 1930's was
based on lack of defendant's representation and is often misinterpreted.
The
defendant was a bootlegger arrested in posession of a sawed off
shotgun. The Court ruled that a shortened shotgun had no military
use and was therefore not protected by the Constitution. The crux
of the decision was that the 2nd Amendment protected civilian ownership
of all small arms in use by the military.
Well, OMG!! the
military has automatic weapons! Enter Congress with the National
Firearms Act of 1934 and all its illegitamate children since then and
you have the mess that is our gun law spiderweb.
Never go to a gunfight with a caliber that starts with less than four
2nd Amendment good news
July 17, 2007 - 13:22 ET by LionKingFear not. I am sure that the protector of the Bill of Rights will be on the case post-haste...here comes the ACLU to the defense of the 2nd Amendment.
<crickets chirping...>
I think you're expecting too
July 17, 2007 - 13:38 ET by sarcasmoI think you're expecting too much here. It would be enough to ask them to be consistent & nonpolitical on the First Amendment and just concentrate on that for a change. And, come to think of it, there'd be less need for a JPFO, etc. if the NRA actually concentrated on the second amendment more.
JMR
The NFA of 1934 didn't ban
July 17, 2007 - 14:05 ET by BruzillaThe NFA of 1934 didn't ban automatic or selective-fire weapons, it only regulated their transfer to/between individuals. It wasn't until the laughably named Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that these were banned. And it was the leadership of the NRA, including Wayne LaPierre, who decided not to fight against this bill since it only banned one type of firearm, and one that there wasn't much of a collector's market for anyway. The rest of the NRA seemed to recognize that FOPA would set a precedent for banning a particular type of gun, and that future bans would cite FOPA as their legal precedent. The NRA leadership said "don't worry about it. They're only going to ban automatics and selective-fire weapons... that's it!" Then along comes Clinton's AWB and we're told again "don't worry about it. They're only going to ban semi-automatics... that's it!"
And they wonder why gun owners are paranoid.
Here we go again
July 17, 2007 - 13:23 ET by BeowulfHere we go again with another "This Ain't Rocket Science" issue. I have some simple questions I would like any and all anti-gunners answer, starting with those politicians who want to take guns away in the interests of "public safety".
Since it is already illegal for criminals to touch, let alone possess a firearm, what positive effect could banning firearms have, and who exactly is targeted by such a law? Criminals are already breaking the law by having a gun. They further have intent to break more laws by using said illegal firearm in the commission of more crime. A criminal will not run over to the nearest police station to turn in his/her illegal firearm because the Mayor says they're now banned. Therefore, the only people affected by this law are those who already OBEY the law.
If it is up to the police to protect everyone, how does law enforcement respond to a murder, rape, or assault before the crime is committed? Police are reactive, not proactive. This has nothing to do with cop's efficiency. It is simply the nature of the beast. Unless a cop happens to be in sight of a crime while it is occuring, all they can do is respond after the fact. Which means Joe Q. Citizen has been robbed, raped, or murdered. It is scant comfort to the victims when the law arrives after the crime. So how will banning firearms prevent this after-the-fact- situation?
I want anti-gun politicians to explain, in detail, EXACTLY how their proposed legislation will prevent criminal misuse of firearms. I don't want to hear cherry-picked statistics or sensationalized emotional diatribes. I don't want to hear party-line rhetoric. I want to hear nuts and bolts answers to how their proposals will protect me more than a gun in my own, law abiding hand will.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
My favorite anti-gun law is
July 17, 2007 - 13:59 ET by BruzillaMy favorite anti-gun law is still San Francisco's ban on all guns. All guns are banned... except for the ones the cops have. The San Francisco government told all it's people that this ban was needed to ensure public safety and that it would get all the guns off the street.
If that's the case, why do the cops still need guns? If the government and the police really feel that this law will get all the guns off the streets, why do police still need to keep theirs? That question was never answered out there.
we don't need no stinking gun ban--
July 18, 2007 - 18:56 ET by misterbillwe don't need no stinking gun ban--using the logic of those who would remove our second amendment rights-we should ban CRIME!!!
Oh, we did that??? What?? It works better if an informed, armed , citizenry help to uphold the law??
Naaaah! That's too easy.
I am going to stage a demo in front of Home Depot--I want torestrict the sale of box-cutters. What's that you say?? It was box cutters as a choice of weapons on 9/11??
Impossible!!!!!!!!!!1
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author:
Just how conservative is the SCOTUS?
July 17, 2007 - 13:45 ET by Dave RIt isn't at all surprising that the anti-freedom MSM would avoid the victorious plaintiffs in this case, or anyone else who believes strongly in our constitutional right to own firearms. After all, gun ownership conveys rights on the individual, a concept which keeps many libs awake nights.
With the filing of the appeal, I think we are on our way to finding out just how conservative our US Supreme Court really is. I hope they do far better than what they decided with McCain-Feingold and that hideous eminent domain decision, as this fair republic will not survive too many more of those.
Should be interesting.
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Dave R
July 18, 2007 - 18:41 ET by americaneagleDon't forget that the Court has had some membership changes since those rulings in Kelo and McCain-Fiengold; there are four solid conservatives on the Court now, and they may be able to persuade Sen. Anthony Kennedy to join them---provided they show him the relevant polling data.
BTW: Is anyone else having a problem using the italics? When I tried to use it on McCain, it put it right next to Kelo. Just wanted to know if the same was happening to anyone else.
americaneagle, I hope you
July 18, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Dave Ramericaneagle,
I hope you are right. Problem is, the republican "conservatives" have let me down so many times in recent years that I'm going to avoid getting my hopes up too much.
Blood pressure, ya know.
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.