Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

[beevul]

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."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1

Interesting that Brady expects to lose.

[slackmaster]

1. How sad for them

:nopity:

[Longtooth]

3. LOL

[Longtooth]

2. Good News

Very good news.

[sui generis]

4. that state-assembled militia better be voluntary

that's my two plugged nickels.

There ain't a popgun big enough to press me or mine into a state militia draft.

That state assembled militia better also not attempt right of main on my property or against mine while I can breathe.

State assembled militia. Good grief. I demand the right to bear tiaras, lances, lace collars and bullet bras.

What society of creative anachronism play does state militias come from? Medieval? Wild wild west? Mork from Ork?

[gorfle]

6. Huh?

that state-assembled militia better be voluntary that's my two plugged nickels.

Since 1903 we have had the organized militia (national guard) and the unorganized militia - all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the organized militia.

So if you're an able-bodied man aged 17-45 and not in the national guard, you are in the unorganized militia.

There ain't a popgun big enough to press me or mine into a state militia draft.

Presumably, should things be bad enough that the governor feels the need to call out the unorganized militia, you'll probably be eager to be helping out, would be my guess. But then, there are those who refuse to stand up and fight no matter what.

That state assembled militia better also not attempt right of main on my property or against mine while I can breathe.

I did a Google on the phrase "right of main", but nothing relevant showed up on the first page. What does it mean?

State assembled militia. Good grief. I demand the right to bear tiaras, lances, lace collars and bullet bras.

I don't believe any of this is in the US Constitution, or are relevant to the founding fathers' vision for decentralized military power in this country. What point are you trying to make?

What society of creative anachronism play does state militias come from? Medieval? Wild wild west? Mork from Ork?

It comes from the US Constitution. You may be interested in reading it and many other contemporary documents that provide insight as to the vision our founding fathers had for the allotment of military power in this country, and why.

[sui generis]

8. I understand the U.S. constitution

apologies for mistating the Right to Commandeer; I was reaching for the latin term and missed the mark.

Seriously though, when most people talk about militia at the extreme end, they're not talking about a foreign enemy, and it is a little paranoid.

Of course I would defend against China or some other conceivable national threat, but I would do it from within the military in that case, and do it by choice. I am too old and evil to take orders from a chucklehead who would force me to fight with a gun at my back, militia OR military.

That's all I'm getting at.

peace

"right of angary" - that was the term I botched

[gorfle]

9. A little paranoia is a good thing.

Seriously though, when most people talk about militia at the extreme end, they're not talking about a foreign enemy, and it is a little paranoid.

Paranoid it may be, but this is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind. Not only was the militia to stand against foreign aggression, but domestic as well. Our founding fathers feared a tyranny imposed by a strong central government. This is why they sought to decentralize the country's military forces - to eliminate, or at least counter, federal military power.

"right of angary" - that was the term I botched

Interesting - I had never heard of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angary

[gorfle]

5. It's funny...

It's funny, in a way. The one thing that really drove me to vote Republican all those years is the one thing where they actually did what I wanted - firearms laws have largely gone my way since 1994.

It's a shame they fucked up every thing else and lost me as a voter. I only hope the Democrats are gunshy enough of the issue to leave it alone for a while.

[jody]

7. I hope the group I've supported for several decades, ACLU, will do the right thing and recognize

RKBA as a civil right.

[old mark]

11. Certainly, it is.

It was put in the company of the right to free speech, free assembly, freedoms from government intrusion. It is an individual, basic human right to be able to defend yourself. The "miliotia"-national guard interpretation makes no sense, never did. It was a straw to grasp for those who make their living being against the bill of rights.

I believe we will here the supremes' decision next Monday, and I believe the voting will not be along party lines or liberal/conservative lines.
IT will be against the DC handgun ban, support the individual right, and will include Justice Ginsburg on the individual rights side.
I will be very interested in this forum the day the decision is made public.

mark

[gorfle]

10. More gems from the article...

"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."

Ah, the old incrementalism game again. How many different ways can you boil a frog, anyway? And people wonder why we are so skeptical about "reasonable" gun control.

"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.""

Universal background checks - I assume they mean background checks for all firearm transactions, including private transactions, will be of no use without firearm registration. Because you can pass a law that says that all firearm transactions require a background check, but what is to stop me from selling a gun to Bob without one if no one knows which guns I or Bob own?

"Super dangerous" assault weapons. Yeah, they are so dangerous that even when combined with all rifles they account for half as many murders as hands and feet. Super dangerous. Hah.

I don't have a problem with limiting the number of firearms you can buy to say...five a month? I'm lucky if I can buy one every five years so I can't imagine five a month being a huge burden on most people.

But again, without also tracking who owns which firearms, there's no way to enforce this with private transfers. Maybe it would be sufficient to just track FFL sales and limit background check requests to five a month.

[Longtooth]

12. I'm wondering now if someone tipped them off on what was coming down?