Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss. 'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' .

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...064&page=1

    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.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    I am perpetually amazed by the doublespeak confusion introduced by the antis.

    "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."

    It doesn't matter what any percentage of the public thinks. It is a inalienable right of humanity guaranteed us by the founders of this Federal Republic.

    Perhaps they should realize that if 75% of the public thinks it is an individual right then the Brady bunch should, practiacally speaking, pack it up and go home?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    No NAU wrote:
    I am perpetually amazed by the doublespeak confusion introduced by the antis.

    "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."

    It doesn't matter what any percentage of the public thinks. It is a inalienable right of humanity guaranteed us by the founders of this Federal Republic.

    Perhaps they should realize that if 75% of the public thinks it is an individual right then the Brady bunch should, practiacally speaking, pack it up and go home?
    Because about 90% of the U.S.population say that they support some measure of "reasonable restrictions". That's what the Bradys are saying; they're going to stop trying to sway people onthe "collective right" interpretation, and start swaying them on what "reasonable restrictions" should be put in place. Notice the Bradys are still saying they're pushing foruniversal background checks anda newassault weapons ban, and that they're confident Chicago's handgun ban will survive Heller because it allows functional long guns to be kept. If they get their way on those three issues, they'll push for California-style ammo sales and transferregistration and for more Chicago handgun bans in other major cities.

    In other words, the Bradys are abandoning the tactic of re-interpreting the 2A to death and havere-focused on restricting it to death. They are anticipating a Heller decision that will provide a test for what is and is not a reasonable restriction, and you can bet they will stretch that test to its limit in trying to regulate the 2A out of existence in the name of safety.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

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

    "We're expect to lose the Battle of Midway", Tojo said. "But this could be good from the standpont of the political-legislative side."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

    Who's writing their copy, "Baghdad Bob"?
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Before it was "doesn't effect hunting". Now it is "doesn't effect self-defense in the home".

    Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Not shall not be infringed for _______. Just shall not be infringed. I suggest that we push for a law that says people who are emotionally stunted cannot argue for infringement of constitutional rights. How could that infringe upon their first amendment right as it doesn't effect hunting or talking to themselves at home.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    I would bet that the anti's really hate Vermont and Alaska. These two states are the closest of the lot to the Original Intent of the Founders. Not all the way there, but quite a bit more so that the rest of the 50. And guess what? They are among the lowest of the states in crime stats.

    Now this is not totally due to the fact that they support the Second Amendment so ardently. Vermont and Alaska are quite demograhically homogeneous with people who can trace their roots for a number of generations. This breeds "sameness" and "oneness" which, while the lovers of multiculturalism and diversity hate it, lends itself to a commonality of purpose and community.. hence, low crime rates.

    It never ceases to amaze me how bigotted and close minded people who love to claim they are so liberal and open minded really are. Having been a liberal and a left-leaning person in my youth, I have a good idea how these people think, what drives them to do and say the things they do, and what their ultimate agenda really is.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •