Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

bugaboo

New member
:eek:

Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' Brady Campaign Head Says
by TEDDY DAVIS

June 12, 2008—

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

The Brady Campaign expects pro-gun groups to use the Supreme Court's decision in the DC case to challenge a gun ban in Chicago, the major city whose gun laws come closest to the nation's capital.

Although the Brady Campaign expects the Chicago ordinance to be challenged, it thinks that it may survive because it does not have the restrictions on long guns like the ones found in Washington, D.C.

The Chicago law may also survive because a decision in the D.C. case will likely not resolve the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and other cities that are not federal enclaves.

Looking beyond the Supreme Court's D.C. gun ban case to the race for the White House, the Brady Campaign views Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as a better friend to gun control advocates than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

ABC News' John Santucci contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1
 
WTF is "a super-dangerous class of weapons"? Is that one of those guns that can kill you super-duper, extra-special, double-stamp, no-quitsies dead, instead of just dead?
 
a super-dangerous class of weapons

Obviously they are looking for the next demonizing phrase... They need to keep looking.

I can see them pushing for a super-dangerous class of weapons ban now... The SDCWB.
 
This is why we need to now work on wiping the Bradys out rather than merely stopping them incrementally. Will we now shift to that at last?
 
Guns are scary and uber dangerous and can severely injure or kill someone.:eek:

Soon law abiding citizens in our nations capital will have them unlocked and loaded in their homes.:eek::eek:

If someone breaks into their home to rob them they might shoot them. The unmitigated horror. :rolleyes:
 
...it's Bush fault.
And when you think there are plenty of gun owners who hate his guts...
Honestly, I don't think they have enough brains to help them rationalize (or the honesty to admit) that the newly Bush appointed SCOTUS judges tipped the balance in our favor and preserved for future generations what I like tho think it is the most important Civil Right: the Right Of The People To Defend all other Civil Rights by the force of arms if necessary.

Just imagine what would have happened to this crucial ruling on the Second Amendment if President Kerry would have appointed new SCOTUS Judges like the ex-ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Posted on my blog here
 
I'm definitely a fan of the new justices, but Bush has done a lot of things that I wouldn't call conservative at all. The mere possibility that he sided with DC makes me want to beat him senseless with a large stalk of broccoli.
 
This sounds like good news to me..... if it is at all true....

and I hope gun restrictions across the nation get challenged in court...
 
There's a couple of things of note in that article.

First - they may be right about the decision impacting the NRA's ability to raise funds to fight gun-control measures.

With a strong court decision, gun owners may breathe a sigh of relief that guns cannot be banned entirely or rendered inoperable. In turn, this could mean that they lose their "fear" of possible draconian gun-controls and contribute less. If SCOTUS gives us a positive ruling, it's not time to sit back, relax and break out a cold brew. It's time to GO ON THE OFFENSIVE and dismantle gun-control.

Second, The Brady Bunch will start focusing on other avenues to restrict the RKBA. Here in California, there's a bill requiring face-to-face, dealer recorded, background-checked ammo sales! And a limit to purchase only 50 rounds a month! I figure they will focus on these types of measures to limit our rights.

Other attacks may take the form of:
- Legistlated engineering changes for safety devices, micro-stamping, and "smart gun" technology.
- Enlarging zones around schools & universities where gun shops can be located.
- Broaden the term "prohibited person" to include any acts of violence - assault, battery, resisting arrest.. and threats to use violence. May also include anyone who owes back child-support, alimony, back taxes, misdemeanor tax violations, etc.
- Requiring ammo to be locked up or behind the counter (no self-service).
- Special requirements to buy more than 2 guns at a time. (Your "right" is protected because you can buy 1 or 2 guns without it).
- "Ammunition tax" - a surcharge on ammo sales to add 2% to 5% to the cost of a box of ammo (the per-bullet tax won't move). Later the tax will be raised to 8%, then 15%.
- "Sporting goods tax" based on the amount of steel in the item. Used to "protect the environment" against all that carbon put out during manufacture.
- Tightening restrictions for shooting ranges. More insurance regulations, noise restrictions, larger "free space" areas around them, etc.
- Tightening of EPA lead standards and special taxes on businesses where airborne lead is present (indoor ranges).
- Reducing how much ammo can be stored in residential areas without a permit.
- Limit possession of powders to 2-3 pounds at a time.
- Safe storage requirements - all guns locked up when no adult is inside the home. Includes a list of "authorized" storage equipment/safes.
- Further pushing for psychiatric records added to NICS.
- Broadening the number of "mental illnesses" that impact your ability to possess firearms.

We are likely to see some innovative posturing and propaganda to promote some of these new regulations.
 
Uhm Bill, Uhm ,i..... got a question.. Why do so many people like California? Seriously, Im not being an ass.
Stuff is expensive
Gas is really expensive.
Housing? "What the hell ?"
and dude, the government there ,,whoa.
Guns, well know you know... the rest of the story.

I was there years ago,, It was hot, dusty, there was traffic, and then there was a beach. A navy bud had a house there that was like 2K A month, and it looked like my Texas $400 a month house, but with a much smaller yard and more traffic. Just wondering, I feel Ca gun owners pain. Sorry guys
 
Last edited:
BillCA

I was wondering how would we go "on the offensive" to dismantle gun control laws across the country??

Wouldnt this process be expensive for the individual?
 
If Bush got anything right it was court appointments and for that he should be thanked

Bush most definitely did NOT get his SCOTUS picks "right." Alito you may recall, was not Bush's first pick to replace O'Connor. That was Harriet Meyers. Meyers is a standout attorney by all accounts, but not qualified in any way for the Supreme Court. Alito was forced on Bush after howls of derisive laughter from the Senate Judiciary Committee followed the Meyers announcement.

No, I think it's safe to assume that Roberts and Alito were picked by a selection committee with little or no input from Bush.
 
BillCA

I was wondering how would we go "on the offensive" to dismantle gun control laws across the country??

Wouldnt this process be expensive for the individual?

Yes it would. This would become the new job of the NRA. They would take the SCOTUS decision and begin challenging the worst of the laws out there. Then, as precedent builds up in their favor the threat of such suits, the money it will cost the gov'ts to defend against, and the certainty of a loss based on precedent, will help to tear down more.
 
armedtotheteeth,
Why California? A state with temperate weather year 'round, diverse attractions (ocean beaches, mountains, deserts, farmland)..a diverse culture, richness in foods from the central valley to restaurants of every type. We can be outdoors almost all year. In our cold season we see visiting South Dakotans donning long sleeve shirts.

But... it's now overcrowded, over priced, over taxed, over regulated and full of leftwing airheads who just want more of "the good life" (defined in extremes -- safe clean cities and nearby pristine wildernesses). :rolleyes:

MyGunsJammed
As Musketeer put it, it would become the NRA's job with our help & support. When I said we need to dismantle gun-control, there are many laws that can, could and should be challenged in light of a positive outcome in Heller. For instance;
  • Every state that requires owners to purchase some kind of card or permit before purchasing. That would include (IIRC - NY, MA, NJ, OH, IL, CA, WA and maybe a few others).
  • One-gun-a-month laws
  • States requiring a permit to keep a gun in your home (NY comes to mind)
  • Federal or state "waiting periods" to acquire a firearm.
  • Limits on the number of firearms you can own.
  • Requiring state approval before shipping a gun into state to your local FFL (CA).
  • Prohibitions on possession of long-guns by minors without an adult present.
  • Prohibitions against "militia rifles" (CA's AW ban)
  • Gun Free School zones that extend beyond the physical boundaries of the school property (step 1).
  • Gun Free School zones in institutions of adult learning (universities, colleges, etc.) where adults take classes.
That's just scratching the surface. Other schemes to increase the cost of firearms and ammunition are likely to crop up.

In a post-Heller environment, each time an anti-gun law is struck down, notice should go to each state with a similar law, advising them to revoke their law within 120 days. If they don't, then a Federal Civil suit is filed for willful civil rights violations asking the law be voided and a civil fine of $25,000 per legislative member be levied against the state as punitive damages.

I still consider the Lautenberg Act to be ex-post facto punishment. While it does not create a new crime, it created a new punishment, one heretofore unknown to persons previously charged with a misdemeanor "domestic violence" complaint. If you substitute "right to vote" for "right to posses a firearm" I think you would have heard the ACLU hollering.
 
Back
Top