November 1, 2001
The Judges Have Spoken, But Who’s Spinning Their Words

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

The long-awaited appellate court decision in the case of the US v. Emerson was handed down in mid-October (click to read). Both sides of the gun issue can claim victory and, while they won’t admit it, both sides also experienced defeat.

Depending on which spinmeisters the media are listening to at any given time, the headlines and lead paragraphs for stories about the 5th Circuit Court decision, vary widely.

Some newspapers ran balanced and objective stories with such headlines as The Tampa Tribune’s “Unprecedented Federal Court Decision On Gun Ownership,” and the following from Texas Lawyer: “5th Circuit Gives Ammo to Both Sides in Gun Control Debate; Court says individuals have right to firearms but Congress may place limits.”

But then there are the headlines that are heavily influenced by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (BCPGV), formerly Handgun Control Inc. Those stories have headlines like the following used by Associated Press: “Court restricts right to bear arms; Domestic violence restraining order can prevent arms sale.”

The VPC and Brady bunch figured out how to make the decision a triumph for the gun controllers, with the BCPGV actually going so far as to criticize the two judges who wrote the majority opinion, claiming they were influenced by the National Rifle Association’s brief in the Emerson case appeal.

Emerson Himself
Few stories, however, focused much on the comments of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson’s original public defender lawyer, David Guinn.

“Legally, it’s a huge victory in the quest to prove that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right,” said Guinn. “More importantly for Dr. Emerson, it’s a very, very sad day. The consequences of fighting unsuccessfully with the federal government are usually pretty harsh.”

The court’s ruling said the restrictions on Emerson’s gun ownership were valid for as long as the restraining order was valid, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide that question.

Guinn said he would request a hearing before the entire appeals court and might ask that the case be heard by the US Supreme Court.

While others may cheer or boo the appellate court’s decision with respect to the Second Amendment, Emerson is far from out of the woods. He is the man who is most personally affected by the case. Pro-gunners may applaud his willingness to stand up in court and test the Second Amendment, but Emerson still could lose his case and be sent to jail. For him the decision is particularly bittersweet. His philosophy may have been upheld, but his future freedom still hangs in the balance.

The Texas case goes back to 1998 when Emerson’s wife, Sacha, filed for divorce and was granted a temporary restraining order to prevent her husband from threatening or harming her or the couple’s daughter.

Emerson was arrested and charged by federal agents after he bought a pistol. He was prosecuted on grounds that purchasing the gun was a violation of the order and of the Lautenberg law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors and people under restraining orders from acquiring or possessing firearms.

District Judge Sam Cummings of Lubbock, TX, granted Emerson’s motions to dismiss the indictment on both Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds, writing a strong individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment into his decision. The government appealed to the 5th Circuit, which heard arguments in the case last year, along with a number of amicus briefs filed by pro- and anti-gun organizations.

Emerson and his attorney, Guinn, have a number of options besides appeal, and the government can pursue the case or move for dismissal. But whatever the players do, the 5th Circuit Court’s ruling is still one of historic importance that will reverberate for years to come—perhaps as far as the US Supreme Court.

Terrorism, Guns & TV
While many gunowners and their opponents were parsing the Emerson decision, USA Today reported on Oct. 16 that a new study showed that gun violence was unattractive to movie and TV viewers these days.

The study found that gun violence is low on the list of what viewers say they want to see in a movie or television show. According to the survey by the Entertainment Industry Council, 85% of people say they would be more likely to watch a humorous movie or television show.

Other top vote-getters in attracting viewers were: special effects, 76%; adventure, 75%; mystery/suspense, 67%; non-violent action, 62%; sex/romance, 55%; physical conflict, 40%, and non-physical conflict, 40%. Only 21% of respondents were interested in watching violence in general, and 19% favored gun violence.

“You would think, from just the prevalence of guns on the screen, that the entertainment industry must think they’re filling some kind of need. But audiences don’t want that kind of bang for their buck—literally,” said Barbara Lurie, the council’s director of programs and research.

(A copy of the survey is available on-line now or in print by contacting the Entertainment Industries Council, 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521; phone: 818-955-6845.)

Blind Man’s Application
David Gordon believes he meets all the requirements to be granted a Michigan concealed firearms license, even if he is blind, according to Associated Press.

The Portage, MI, man is over the age of 21, has completed a gun-safety course, and doesn’t have a criminal record or history of mental illness.

Gordon’s application for a concealed firearms license in Kalamazoo County has touched off debate over the rights of the blind to carry guns. Michigan’s new right-to-carry law does not specifically exclude people with disabilities or include any shooting accuracy requirements.

Gordon said he is not an activist for gun rights, but he has been mugged twice—once at gunpoint—and knew a blind man who was beaten in the late 1980s.

“I’ve been in situations where I’ve experienced fear. I have the right to protect myself if I’m in danger,” said Gordon, 52, who has been certified by a veteran gun instructor.

County gun board members were expected to consider Gordon’s application in late October, after this issue of Gun Week went to press.

“On the surface of it, I think it’s highly unlikely Gordon will receive a permit,” said gun board Chairman Phillip Reames, a firearms instructor.

Reames said Gordon would probably fall under a section of the law denying permits to those considered a danger to themselves or others.

The gun board plans to discuss the application with Gordon.

Gun rights advocates say Gordon deserves to be treated like anyone else.

But Joy Livingston, president of the Southwest Michigan “Million” Mom March/Brady Campaign, argued it’s an issue of public safety overriding individual rights.

While the previously cited survey’s results showed a majority of the American public is cool to the idea of more gun violence in TV and movies, Gordon’s story and the dilemma facing the Kalamazoo County board would make a great TV show.

A television writer of my acquaintance asked me about blind people and their ability to use guns for a possible script a number of years ago. I explained that specialized sound-engineered target equipment was available for blind shooters, and that at extremely close range it wouldn’t matter if an armed person was blind or not if their life was in danger.

Now, it seems, a script based on Gordon’s application in Michigan would satisfy a lot of viewers. It could include special effects, non-violent conflict, physical challenge, non-violent conflict resolution, and non-physical conflict—especially with the Kalamazoo County licensing authorities.

Who knows? Maybe a good script writer would include some sex and romance.

One thing is sure: since the CCW issue came to a head in Michigan, there’s been one good story line after another.