Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

[AndyC]

'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' Brady Campaign Head Says

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."

more at ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1)

[Jez Cruzen]

Well, I'm not as sure about what the results will be as the Brady Bunch. But this is the first time that I hope they are correct!

[FC-BEAVERS]

"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"

"Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home"


Never underestimate the mind of a truly dedicated idiot:rolleyes:

[SWOHFAL]

Perhaps no one read closely enough, but these clowns feel this will be a minor setback and engender legislative attempts to reverse the issue to their favor.

[Firestarter]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL
Perhaps no one read closely enough, but these clowns feel this will be a minor setback and engender legislative attempts to reverse the issue to their favor.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd as it was intended then good luck with the legislative attempts.

Those clowns don't get it and never will.

[Potshot]

oooh, oooh, we have a new one!!

"super-dangerous" ooooooooohh!!:rolleyes:

[fastfreddy]

John Friggin Kerry said he believes the Second Amendment secures an individual right and he supports it...... WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.

There's the rub. No senator ever voted for more gun ban bills than John Kerry, who openly supported the individual right position.

These clowns will stand there and tell us the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that may not be infringed, even as they infringe it into oblivion with "REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS".

[renaissance_warrior]

Funny, the only 'reasonable restirction' that I'm aware of on the 1st amendment is like yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. I'd say that regarding the 2nd, we need to take Kerry, Feinstien, Boxer, Shumer, and Reid into the same theater and say 'OPEN FIRE!'. :tongue: There, the Republic restored. :beer:

[FAL freek]

The guncontrol minions are like cockroaches in a house that just got sprayed they get decimated and they go hide in the shadows until they have replenished their numbers then come back full force.

At least common sense prevailed. Of course the Brady bunch will use this loss to get more money to fill their coffers. It's for the children ya know.

[Rebar]

The strategy seems pretty clear to me: Supreme Court hands down the decision that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, the left goes nuts and scares the soccer moms and the rest, Obama wins, he packs the court with ultraradical leftists, a case is manufactured to go to the court, court rules it's a state right after all, Obama starts the ball rolling for total civilian disarmament.

Think about that when you write in Ron Paul.

[Heat]

Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
Funny, the only 'reasonable restirction' that I'm aware of on the 1st amendment is like yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. I'd say that regarding the 2nd, we need to take Kerry, Feinstien, Boxer, Shumer, and Reid into the same theater and say 'OPEN FIRE!'. :tongue: There, the Republic restored. :beer:
I have heard that analogy before..'cant yell fire in a theater'
Well, you are not allowed to OPEN fire fire in a theater as well, but until you actually DO do that you are allowed to own and posess firearms just like you are allowed to enter the theatre without your mouth being taped over to PREVENT you from yelling fire...its all so simple, libs just muddy the waters

[tuck0411]

Writing in Ron Paul (or anyone else) is besides the point. I'm sort of amazed that we're worried about this at all. We have the 2nd Amendment - what is it for? Is it that we're all too scared and worried to put it to it's practical and intended use?

All I want to know is where's the rally point after Obama gets elected. ( I will admit that it's easier for someone like myself, being single, no dependents, to post such sentiments than someone with a family. That being said, the founding fathers had families, too. Suck it up and drive on!)

(Gawd, I hope BATF doesn't monitor this forum - I've got a NICs check coming up this week and probably a few more before the year is out, sigh.)

[Heat]

Originally posted by tuck0411
Writing in Ron Paul (or anyone else) is besides the point. I'm sort of amazed that we're worried about this at all. We have the 2nd Amendment - what is it for? Is it that we're all too scared and worried to put it to it's practical and intended use?

All I want to know is where's the rally point after Obama gets elected. ( I will admit that it's easier for someone like myself, being single, no dependents, to post such sentiments than someone with a family. That being said, the founding fathers had families, too. Suck it up and drive on!)

(Gawd, I hope BATF doesn't monitor this forum - I've got a NICs check coming up this week and probably a few more before the year is out, sigh.)
I'd gander to say that we ARE being monitored..keep that in mind:shades:

[tuck0411]

Originally posted by Heat

I'd gander to say that we ARE being monitored..keep that in mind:shades:

I do, I do... but somehow I don't give a flying ****. After all, who should be monitoring who here?

[FAL freek]

Originally posted by tuck0411


I do, I do... but somehow I don't give a flying ****. After all, who should be monitoring who here? Just remember you exist to give them a job.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by Firestarter


If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd as it was intended then good luck with the legislative attempts.

Those clowns don't get it and never will.

I don't buy that interpretation of the import of such a SCOTUS ruling. That only means that our now-established individual rights can be subverted for the "greater good." Additionally, it will be years before such subversions get to court and I'm uncertain we'll get a favorable ruling from a Court that thinks terrorists should be granted <i>habeas corpus</i>.

[tuck0411]

Originally posted by FAL freek
Just remember you exist to give them a job.

I understand that. But, my question stands.

[Azrial]

These folks can not quit, they must continue to push gun control, the plans their masters have demand an unarmed populace. It has noting to do with crime control and never has.

[Firestarter]

I agree that they will never stop trying. I am only hopeful that the wording of the decision is such that it is clearly acknowledged to be an individual right. I also wish for that language to be so unrefutable as to cause the left to scratch their heads for some time.

We can only hope.

[fastfreddy]

Only government friendly reporters should have freedom of the press.

Only government approved religion may be practiced.

If you say the wrong thing, you should be re-educated.

Just a few reasonable restrictions on the first amendment.

[FAL freek]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
Only government friendly reporters should have freedom of the press.
Careful that's how Communism and Hitlers' socalism got started. McCarthy got popular like that also. China and Cuba still practice that today.

[AndyC]

I'm sure fastfreddy is very aware of that - he's playing the "What if they read the First Amendment as they do the Second" game :wink:

[FAL freek]

Originally posted by AndyC
I'm sure fastfreddy is very aware of that - he's playing the "What if they read the First Amendment as they do the Second" game :wink: :uhoh: blonde moment :rofl:

[Scott S]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
...

These clowns will stand there and tell us the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that may not be infringed, even as they infringe it into oblivion with "REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS".

Bingo. I expect later this week or next that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Heller, calling the 2nd an individual right. However, based on the discussion during oral arguments, I also expect to see "reasonable restrictions" rear it's ugly head. At that point the slippery slope gets a lot steeper.

[Kyrottimus]

Originally posted by Scott S
...I also expect to see "reasonable restrictions" rear it's ugly head. At that point the slippery slope gets a lot steeper.

Yeah, where it will likely drop off into the abyss.

[renaissance_warrior]

I don't agree with that view. 'Falling into the abyss and having a civil right confirmed by the SCOTUS would make any more restrictions a bit more onerous to say the least.

My view is that cities that have gun bans will have to immediately rescind them. Brady will bleat about the 'rivers of blood' just like the expiration of the AWB, when crime went down, not up.

In the past 10 years, we've gained more handgun freedoms than in the prior 30. The RKBA carry states, more reciprocity and bills for national as well. I see the wind blowing the other direction, the antis know that as well, they just haven't admitted defeat yet. :shades:

[Kyrottimus]

Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
I don't agree with that view. 'Falling into the abyss and having a civil right confirmed by the SCOTUS would make any more restrictions a bit more onerous to say the least.

My view is that cities that have gun bans will have to immediately rescind them. Brady will bleat about the 'rivers of blood' just like the expiration of the AWB, when crime went down, not up.

In the past 10 years, we've gained more handgun freedoms than in the prior 30. The RKBA carry states, more reciprocity and bills for national as well. I see the wind blowing the other direction, the antis know that as well, they just haven't admitted defeat yet. :shades:

I hope you're right, four all our sakes.

I made that "abyss" comment because I'm a jaded, bitter cynic who realizes that:

A). Optimists are constantly dissapointed

B). Cynics/Pessimists are sometimes pleasantly surprised

:tongue:

[Scott S]

Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
I don't agree with that view. 'Falling into the abyss and having a civil right confirmed by the SCOTUS would make any more restrictions a bit more onerous to say the least.

RW, I like your optimism, and I hope you're right. After SCOTUS hands down the decision, I'd love to eat a mighty big helping of crow.

However, our civil rights as enumerated in the good old Consitution don't seem to stand in the way of legislatures. Sure didn't stand in the way of DC thirty-odd years ago when they passed the handgun ban. Seems to me that there's not much for legislatures to lose, other than their seats, if they pass crappy laws. If the law is eventually found unconstitutional, no one who passed the law is held accountable. When/if the DC law is held unconstitutional, the PTB in DC will simply look for other ways to ban weapons. However, if we, the People, run afowl of the law, we're certainly held accountable, bad law or not.

[renaissance_warrior]

However, if any institution violates a CIVIL RIGHT that's an entirely different matter. It is up to and the obligation of the USDOJ to prosecute it. Look at the voting rights act, for eample, or many 1st amendment cases, the FOIA that's been a godsend to reporters and individuals alike.

With the respect afforded the new status of the 2nd, any anti-gun laws would and should be afforded the same protections that undid the Jim Crow voting laws of the late 1800's. Let's hope that people like Daley et. al. realize this.

[evan price]

Originally posted by Potshot
oooh, oooh, we have a new one!!

"super-dangerous" ooooooooohh!!:rolleyes:

I feel sooooo inadequate. None of my guns are labelled "Super-Dangerous". I checked all the receipts. >sigh< Guess I'll just have to make do with my stoopid old barely useful "Dangerous" ones... (kicks stone on ground)

[renaissance_warrior]

Well, one thing that's consistent about the antis, if they can't can't change the laws, they change the 'definitions' to make them more dangerous. I guess it all started with the color black, and devolved from there. :rolleyes:

[republic]

Originally posted by Scott S


Bingo. I expect later this week or next that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Heller, calling the 2nd an individual right. However, based on the discussion during oral arguments, I also expect to see "reasonable restrictions" rear it's ugly head. At that point the slippery slope gets a lot steeper.

I heard an interesting take on this case back in March from the Constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira. There is audio and a transcript available at JFPO (http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080324.htm). If I understand his critique of the case, he feels that the individual right aspect of the case is weaker and more prone to infringement under "reasonable restriction" or whatever smoke they blow up each others sphincters in the district of criminals and their affiliated branches. He seems to think that the militia aspect when applied to the individual members of the militia as intended in the framers vocabulary would be a more robust case and would be far more wide reaching in terms of reigning in unconstitutional laws.

An interesting discussion (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228463) I have since found using the all powerful search, dating from March.

republic

[jaykden]

except that the 2nd IS an individual right, and NOT a right garanteed to the militias.....


lets stay with the true meaning, huh?

[StarPD]

".....the right of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED"

[John Culver]

Originally posted by StarPD
".....the right of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED"

but but, for the children? and reasonable ? for safety?

[StoneyCreekMrMauser]

"Rivers of blood." Charming, yes? The only blood will be that of victims too dumb to get off their asses and defend themselves and the crooks who get blasted to Hell and gone for not finding a more productive career.

And then there was Jon...:shades: