More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

After seeing all the ads on CBS referencing the Second Amendment and this week's episode of The Defenders, I watched the new series for the first time - and was pleasantly surprised.

No, it didn't match the acting quality of the early 1960s lawyer show of the same name, and other shows have done a better job portraying off-beat lawyers (particularly Ally McBeal and Boston Legal) and the uniqueness of Las Vegas (CSI), but I thought they handled the Second Amendment gun rights vs. gun regulation discussion even-handedly.

The plot involves a young man (Cody), who is arrested for having a number of guns in his vehicle with the serial numbers filed off. It turns out he was transporting these guns for his grandfather. It's not clear whether he knew that the serial numbers had been removed.

The grandfather is portrayed as a Second Amendment absolutist who feels restrictions on guns represent an infringement on his freedom. The grandfather stockpiles a large quantity of guns and sells and distributes them to others who, he says, believe like he does.

The lawyers (Jerry O'Connell as Pete Kaczmarek and Jim Belushi as Nick Morelli) also have to deal with a Nevada NRA-type group that wants to make Cody a poster child for gun rights and a Federal investigation of gun trafficking involving the grandfather.

The writing by Jacqueline Hoyt and direction by Matt Earl Beesley convey a legitimate sense of concern and skepticism by Pete when he meets the grandfather, sees the "barn" stockpiled nearly ceiling-high with guns, and discusses who the "they" is that the grandfather and his friends think they need to defend against. The grandfather, however, is not portrayed as a scary kook (the real militia types featured in Time magazine's cover story on October 11 this year were a lot more threatening) and concedes that in 10 years or so this gun stockpiling and militia preparation might look silly (unless, as he says, some Americans are at war with our government by that time).

The courtroom questioning of the ATF agent by Nick raised the definition of the Second Amendment. It could have had a stronger response from the agent but did make the point that public safety requires some ability to trace and regulate guns.

Too many TV shows focus only on guns as part of the story of a shooting by a bad guy, or as some miracle weapon used by a nearly omnipotent hero to quickly and accurately stop the bad guy. This needlessly raises our level of fear and promotes a false hope of the gun as savior.

This episode of The Defenders touched on an issue too often ignored -- how guns are trafficked and where the guns used in crime come from. The show was balanced in its treatment of the Second Amendment and the gun issue -- and I'm likely to watch again to see how they handle other story lines.

Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

 
After seeing all the ads on CBS referencing the Second Amendment and this week's episode of The Defenders, I watched the new series for the first time - and was pleasantly surprised. No, it didn't ...
After seeing all the ads on CBS referencing the Second Amendment and this week's episode of The Defenders, I watched the new series for the first time - and was pleasantly surprised. No, it didn't ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 182
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:03 PM on 12/15/2010
Behind the scenes look at gun control today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045_5.html?sid=ST2010121406431

IOW, more bad news for Paul.
01:05 PM on 12/15/2010
Nice article. Thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:39 PM on 12/14/2010
I'm absolutely convinced that only the gunists are absolutists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:09 PM on 12/14/2010
SewaneeLeftist: It is great to see you, my friend. I replied to enlightened45's extraordinarily apt post below but it didn't show up. I'll send it to you. I suggested we leave echo chambers to the absolutists until changes are made .... etc. It's rare to meet friends on the gun threads. I'm happy to see you. I'll talk with you soon.
06:41 PM on 12/14/2010
Bye.
01:14 AM on 12/15/2010
"until changes are made"

Rather Authoritarian of you. Chillingly evocative of others who've sought unlimited power...
06:41 PM on 12/14/2010
That's nice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
10:20 AM on 12/14/2010
Question: Wouldn't a balanced approach focus on a character who was -- you know -- not some militia type who's filing serial numbers off guns? That hardly defines an average, middle-America gun owner.

Maybe they could do an episode on Brian Aitken.
04:42 PM on 12/14/2010
To me, the fact that Mr. Helmke believes that to be a fair, evenhanded, and representative portrayal of gun enthusiasts is more interesting than the show's rather silly plot. On the other hand, if that's what gun control advocates think we are really like, then it certainly explains a lot of the rhetoric that surrounds this issue.

The thing is, I know for a fact that Mr. Helmke has met quite a few pro-gun bloggers under cordial and mutually respectful circumstances, so he must know that this stereotype certainly isn't true of those he has met in person.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:12 PM on 12/14/2010
Hello DaveNYC: I see you are once again calling for a balanced approach -- we may differ on what balances what, but I know we can agree on some things. Good to see you.
02:10 AM on 12/15/2010
DW--you have made it plain that your idea of "balanced" is to selectively silence your opposition and BMW when your friends (like guffie clayton) get tossed for violating TOS
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
02:54 PM on 12/13/2010
So now Paul you are reduced to citing fictional TV shows instead of substance for your articles. Yep, you can still report to the board of directors that you posted on HP...good thing there is no quality stipulation on that report and pretty good thing they rarely read what you post. Still, as this issue has run its course it may be time for you to find another. Please read below. On this page, only one (that is right, only one) person supports your attempt to strip American Citizens of their civil rights.
12:06 PM on 12/13/2010
So since when do the NRA and gun owners oppose the serial number requirements in the Gun Control Act of 1968?

I doubt you would be happy with a similarly false caricature of your side of the argument.
photo
Puller58
Man of Mystery
07:25 AM on 12/13/2010
Guns.  The issue will never be resolved this you have absolutists on both sides.  As far as the Defenders is concerned, I can't stand Jim Belushi and Jerry O'Connell.  I wouldn't watch this show if they paid me.
11:49 AM on 12/13/2010
I see no reason to compromise with Helmke and the BC until they stop advocating bans on popular firearms and any/all forms of carry
photo
Sugarmaker
Act like what you do makes a difference, it does
08:16 PM on 12/13/2010
They have proven many times that they are absolutists, and have no interest in any form of compromise. They have used the illusion of compromise only as a strategy to impose total prohibition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
10:17 AM on 12/14/2010
"The issue will never be resolved [because] you have absolutist­s on both sides."

A good concise summary.

It may be that the issue moves forward more now that it is shifting to the courts. That is sort of what happened with abortion and contraception -- two other issues that brought out the absolutists.
01:12 AM on 12/15/2010
What's wrong with being an absolutist in regards to Civil Rights?

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!â€
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:59 AM on 12/12/2010
"This program reached millions of viewers in one time period, and will be rerun countless times in the next few years. I will try to catch it next time, or the next, or the next."
--enlightened45

Heller and McDonald reached *everyone* and will be rerun (cited in RKBA cases) countless times *forever*.

Score in the real world: gun-rights 2, gun-control 0.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:41 AM on 12/13/2010
Yes, because it's a game.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
02:44 PM on 12/11/2010
This program reached millions of viewers in one time period, and will be rerun countless times in the next few years. I will try to catch it next time, or the next, or the next......
03:13 PM on 12/11/2010
Yep. Reruns have always proven to have such astronomical changes on society. I'm sure this show will continue the trend.
03:16 PM on 12/11/2010
U45--of course you realize that the LSM is as biased (and in the same direction) as the BC
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
04:56 PM on 12/11/2010
Palin talking points, I presume.....
02:14 PM on 12/11/2010
I can guarantee one thing--if Helmke thinks it is even handed, the program has serious bias against the RKBA--do not forget that Paul thinks that the laws tossed in Heller and McDonald are "reasonable and common sense"
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
11:30 PM on 12/10/2010
Oh brother ~~~eyeroll~~~
06:51 PM on 12/10/2010
Paul needs to draw his inspiration and hope from fictional tv shows since the facts and realities of the real world are clearly against him and his agenda.
05:53 PM on 12/10/2010
"I watched the new series for the first time - and was pleasantly surprised."

Because of the negative portrayal of gun owners? Is that what you call even-handed?

"This needlessly raises our level of fear and promotes a false hope of the gun as savior."

It has been pointed out in the comments of your many past blogs that the BC needlessly uses fear and smear campaigns to promote it's agenda. Will that continue Paul?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:53 PM on 12/10/2010
I guess when your gun control ideology has been rejected in the real world, watching it being realized in a fictional TV show is some small comfort. Keep watching TV, Paul. Brush the popcorn off your clothes when you come outside into the real world every once in a while.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
04:31 PM on 12/10/2010
The truth is that the Brady Campaign’s signature legal strategy, that gun ownership is a collective right, was always a false assumption. After their stellar losses in Heller and McDonald, when they walk into court in support of a case, they have to beg for what they would consider “reasonable†restrictions. The harsh reality is that many of the laws they have supported are far from “reasonable†and are more and more often being ruled unconstitutional. There is no grandstanding in these cases, no surprise witnesses, no bargaining from federal or local agencies. There’s just the law and its application and justice with the Brady Campaign on the losing end. I could see where they would want to escape in some fictional story where gun owners are unapologetic criminals.
05:06 PM on 12/10/2010
just4--don't forget that Paul and the BC/VPC/CSGV view the laws tossed in Heller and McDonald as eminently reasonable and demonstrate common sense
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enlightened45
06:58 PM on 12/10/2010
Even those gun advocates who "won" in Heller and McDonald would never classify the cases as "stellar" examples of gun "rights". The ones involved in the cases as well as other legal experts have recognized that these rulings have created so many ambiguities in other cases that litigation will almost be certain in every instance of firearms ownership and carrying. As one of the litigants famously said.."Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it", in responding to the "can of worms" that the SCOTUS had opened with their "decisions"...Sorry, Just4, but dreaming doesn't make it reality.....
09:02 PM on 12/10/2010
The only 'can of worms' was how many laws are going to be declared unconstitutional as groups like the BC become more irrelevant.
09:04 PM on 12/10/2010
Many ambiguities are fine what's not longer ambiguous however is whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - that has been set in stone, as affirmed by all 9 justices in Heller v DC. No locality, State or Congress may infringe upon the 2nd amendment now, as affirmed by the majority in McDonald v Chicago. In this way Heller and McDonald were massive wins for gun rights. It's a civil liberty, always has been but now the law says you are wrong when you disagree.

Heller was a 5-4 decision on whether or not a handgun ban violated the 2nd amendment, but ALL 9 Justices agreed it's an individual right. This is no conservative "activist" judge's doing.

From the Heller dissent:

"Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right†or an “individual right.†Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."