Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   The Club House (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f12/gun-control-group-braces-court-loss-4931/)

sculker 06-13-2008 01:09 PM

Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
 
:D

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

Dillinger 06-13-2008 02:00 PM

While I am tempted to say Strike One for the Good Guys, I am worried that they, the liberals, are correct. This ruling will be something that will focus future attempts to be more tightly centered on one item at a time.

Ever Vigiliant - We must prepare now for future battles.

Thanks for the post sculker!

JD

RL357Mag 06-14-2008 12:50 AM

Well the first step is to establish once and for all that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right and not a collective right. That's a big step in the "rights" direction. If the Anti's want to spar one battle at a time, then we must oblige them!

bkt 06-14-2008 10:28 AM

Somehow, I have doubts that even if the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right that gun control and permit laws will suddenly disappear.

opaww 06-14-2008 12:31 PM

I read this quite a few hours before it was posted, and did not want to post it because some people will read at it and assume that we have won the finial battle for our rights and we no longer need to worry about it.

That is one problem with people they read at something and do not really read what it says. There is further statements that shows the attacks on our Second Amendment rights will be attacked from other angles where their will less resistance to it.

Having already warned people in RL and on a few boards I write on about the doubling and tripling of the efforts of the Anti-Americans I mean anti-gunners regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court. We now have written statements on what HCI will be focusing on.

Do not let your guard down.

RL357Mag 06-14-2008 02:00 PM

There is no doubt that the anti's (American and Gun's) will be amping up there attacks, ESPECIALLY in light of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment. If Obama wins, and with the Dem majority in congress, many of these new attacks will probably be successful too. That's why the congressional elections are going to either spell success ot disaster for gun owners.

ScottG 06-14-2008 04:44 PM

Ok, the Court rules for an individual right. These groups openly publish their desire to continue to take away the right. Any legal basis for challenging them in court? Cease and desist? Illegal activity? Sedition? RICO?

RL357Mag 06-15-2008 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottG (Post 27908)
Ok, the Court rules for an individual right. These groups openly publish their desire to continue to take away the right. Any legal basis for challenging them in court? Cease and desist? Illegal activity? Sedition? RICO?


I think the problem is going to be at the local level. For instance, after the sunset of the 94' AWB, NY retained almost all of the ban criteria. And NOBODY has challenged it so far. The other problem is that the constitution doesn't specify which arms we can bear, and which ones we cant. Common sense dictates that we should be able to own ANY gun - just like the federal authorities can - after all, the 2nd Amendment was included to prevent obtrusive and restrictive government. How can we fight the government if they are armed better than the citizenry? So as far as a legal basis to challenge the anti-gun agenda, we have had a legal basis ever since the introduction of the 1934 Machine Gun Act! The problem is that nobody seems to want to challenge the assertion that citizens should not be in possession of full-auto or any other type of gun available to the military and LE. IMO every gun law on the books is illegal with the exception of convicted felons or mentally incapacitated individuals, and even that is a dicey subject.

bkt 06-15-2008 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottG (Post 27908)
Ok, the Court rules for an individual right. These groups openly publish their desire to continue to take away the right. Any legal basis for challenging them in court? Cease and desist? Illegal activity? Sedition? RICO?

Probably not, no. They're free to petition for an amendment to the Constitution to remove 2A.

BigO01 06-15-2008 10:54 AM

Quote:

So as far as a legal basis to challenge the anti-gun agenda, we have had a legal basis ever since the introduction of the 1934 Machine Gun Act! The problem is that nobody seems to want to challenge the assertion that citizens should not be in possession of full-auto or any other type of gun available to the military and LE. IMO every gun law on the books is illegal with the exception of convicted felons or mentally incapacitated individuals, and even that is a dicey subject.
All quite true .

If the founders had NOT intended for the people to have weapons that were equal to that of the military service they could have specified earlier versions that were inferior to the Flintlocks they had used in the war .

Without going into complete detail of the evolution of firearms suffice it to say the modern Flintlocks were hardly the first in a line of improvements to the design .

The Wheel Lock is one such example , and while I am no expert on the design going just from memory it worked with a spring loaded wheel rather than a hammer to strike the flint which in turn ignited the powder . As the wheel spun it threw sparks to contact the powder rather than one blow from a hammer that accomplished the same thing but more efficiently .

Prior to the Wheel Lock somewhere there was a example in which you actually took a candle or burning stick and had to touch a hole in the barrel to ignite the powder .

I do believe there are others in there I just can't recall , I'm sure if one took the time the information is available .


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.