Leftist Federal Judge Tries to Undo Most Effective Anti-Gun Measure in the USA

Posted by on Jan 09, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Image: Al Sharpton

Ironically, many the  people now waging war on the Second Amendment are also the same folks who furiously protest sensible measures to combat the scourge of illegal weapons on the streets of our large cities overrun with crime. In New York City the NYPD has been employing  stop-and-frisk measures with great success over the past few years despite the protestations of the usual suspects on the left, notably Obama pal and MSNBC star Al Sharpton, who of course calls the practice racist.

So in one breath Sharpton calls for gun control (and knife control for good measure), yet fights with his last breath a meaningful way to end gun violence.

Naturally, a far left agitator posing as a judge wholeheartedly agrees with Sharpton.

An element of the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practice was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge on Tuesday, a ruling that may have broad implications for the city’s widespread use of police stops as a crime-fighting tactic.

The decision, the first federal ruling to find that the practice under the Bloomberg administration violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, focused on police stops conducted in front of several thousand private residential buildings in the Bronx enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program. Property managers in that program have asked the police to patrol their buildings and to arrest trespassers.

But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said officers were routinely stopping people outside the buildings without reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing.

You can’t have it both ways. A demonstrably effective program has greatly reduced the use of illegal guns in New York City, yet we have leftist blowhards who call for gun control opposing the program. Then again, these folks have been having it both ways for decades. It’s called picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you want to enforce.

How much blood will federal Judge Shira Scheindlin have on her hands when she finishes dismantling the most effective anti-gun-violence program in urban America?

The Manhattan jurist yesterday ordered an immediate halt to the use of stop-and-frisk against suspected trespassers outside privately owned Bronx buildings.

This, even as the buildings’ landlords have given cops permission to do so under the city’s “Clean Halls” program.

Scheindlin makes no bones about why she’s undercutting a program that has saved thousands of lives.

“The public interest in liberty and dignity under the Fourth Amendment trumps whatever modicum of added safety might be gained” by the use of stop-and-frisk, she wrote in a 157-page opinion.

So the so-called “dignity” of  gun-toting thugs now outweighs Second Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans.

Indeed, this is the same loony-left judge who refused to allow an expert to even testify about the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk as “irrelevant” and “too speculative.”

“The issue . . . is not whether trespass stops . . . [effectively] reduce crime, but whether they are constitutional,” she wrote.

Such slavish obeisance to abstraction doubtless will earn her rave reviews from New Yorkers who live in neighborhoods that are rarely subject to random shootings.

But there is no dignity in lying bleeding in the streets, shot down for a jacket or a wallet or in response to some random perceived insult.

And the fact is, thanks to stop-and-frisk, New York is not in the grip of the murder epidemic that is paralyzing Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia — none of which have comparable programs.

Homicides here have fallen to all-time lows — reflecting the NYPD’s critical shift from simply responding to crimes in favor of proactively preventing crime through crime-targeted vigilance.

We normally part ways on most issues with the virulently anti-gun Michael Bloomberg, but he’s remained steadfast in support of this common sense approach to law enforcement. Maybe if Rahm Emanuel did the same thing he wouldn’t have so much blood on his hands. Speaking of Emanuel, Scheindlin was appointed by one of his former bosses

6 Responses to “Leftist Federal Judge Tries to Undo Most Effective Anti-Gun Measure in the USA”

  1. Cedric winston on 10/10/13 at 4:04 pm

    The article refuses to admit that the frisking is geared toward minorities. The same ones who overwhelmingly swept the administration back into power along with the doj to help fight police harassment. Man 11/07/2012 was a great day.

  2. Knoxville on 12/12/13 at 9:11 am

    How on earth can a supposedly conservative website refer to the blatantly unconstitutional practice of having the police stop and search someone with no reasonable suspicion they are committing a crime as a “common sense approach”?

    We often, accuse the left of wanting to selectively enforce the bill of rights by ignoring the clear meaning of the second amendment. It seems that you are doing the same thing by ignoring the fourth.

  3. 1stBNFMF on 16/16/13 at 3:13 pm

    The point was, in a City with extremely restrictive gun laws already in place. There is this incredible, unexplained issue with violent crime and illegal guns. So the practice of stop and frisk, was implemented to combat it. Once you take away a Constitutional right, what’s a few more of those pesky Constitutional rights being stripped away?
    So it’s funny (ironic) that on a day when the (Legislature) pass even more failed restrictive laws. A Judge in New York City strikes down one restrictive law that actually seemed to be working.
    That’s the shtick…
    Just so we are clear (crystal) I’m totally against the stop-and-frisk measure. If it wasn’t so blatantly idiotic it really would be quite funny.