Gun opponents up in arms as Jerry Brown aids NRA

[beevul]

Gun opponents up in arms as Jerry Brown aids NRA

Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross

Monday, November 23, 2009



It may come as a surprise to many of his Democratic supporters, but Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown has gone to bat for the National Rifle Association.

The NRA's cause: urging the U.S. Supreme Court to guarantee the ability of gun owners across the land to keep and bear arms.

Now, gun advocates are challenging Chicago's handgun ban, asking the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment equally applies to the states. And there was no shortage of states - 34 in all - jumping on the bandwagon in support of the court hearing the case.

In July, before the court agreed to take the case, Brown went so far as to file his own friend-of-the-court brief asking that Chicago's gun ban be overturned - arguing that if the court doesn't act, "California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes."

His stance has angered a number of gun control proponents.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/23/BAFI1AO83D.DTL#ixzz0YUYgQy9L

Another interesting event in the post-heller chain.

[paulsby]

1. jerry brown

is many things, but he's not an idiot. he can actually read stuff, like the 2nd amendment.

not surprising to me at all.

[David Zephyr]

2. Nor to me.

He's a great guy.

[brewens]

3. I alway wondered about precedent concerning the second amendment.

Was there ever some guy that tried to keep a cannon or something else real nasty after the Revolutionary War or Civil War? If so, I would imagine he got it confiscated and no one thought much about it. At least no second amendment advocates putting up a big fight for the guy.

[oneshooter]

5. It wasn't illegal to own artillery then

and it still isn't today. And I'm talking about relatively modern artillery. If you submit the paperwork, pass the Federal check and can afford it.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

7. Keep in mind what "arms" means in the Constitution...

In the context of the times when the Second was drafted & passed, "arms" means a projectile-firing weapon designed to be held and operated in one or both arms, hence the expression. Larger ordnance (your cannon, a ball turret from a B-17, MiG fighters, etc.) can be legally owned, but come under stricter regulation.

I had a relative who ringed his house in Tampa with multi-colored 500 lb. bombs -- empty, of course. But, you can own a tank, if you want.

[aikoaiko]

12. This is why imagining can lead people to the wrong conclusion.

Cannon are legal to own given the proper paperwork.

[aikoaiko]

14. !

!

[AtheistCrusader]

17. And state law.

In Oregon you can, in Washington you cannot. State laws vary.

(No Select-Fire weapons for you in Washington either.)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. There are no federal restrictions of any kind on smoothbore cannons.

I'm not sure the BATFE considers something a "firearms" if it's got a smooth bore.
I'm pretty sure this is why teenagers everywhere aren't in federal prison for making potato guns.

However, modern rifled cannons and firearms over .510 caliber (.50BMG) are under federal scrutiny. They are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the NFA and subject to background checks and more paperwork. If you can afford modern artillery, your state allows it, and you can pass a background check then nothing stands in your way owning one except the time it takes to push the paperwork through.

Happy hunting,
0.1%

[oneshooter]

19. If the cannon is muzzle loaded

then it is legal to own. It does not matter if it is rifled or not. Also many artillery pieces up till 1900 are legal to own without federal paperwork, and a lot of them are both rifled AND breach loading AND use self contained cartridges. The only restriction is that solid shot only can be used. No explosive projectiles!! Each one of them will cost you a LOT of paper work, a really anal background check and a $200 fee, per item.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. So a breechloading potato-gun is restricted?

I have a killer breach loader.
Schedule 80 PVC, lapped bore, & runs on a stoichiometric mixture of ether or propane.
With an ideal carved potato it's really quite fun.
it'll put squash balls through walls.

[Euromutt]

21. I wouldn't bet too hard on that

For starters, shotguns are smoothbore weapons, and so is the Rheinmetall 120mm gun on the Leopard 2 main battle tank.

[X_Digger]

4. Brown 'hasn't shown leadership'..

"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

That _is_ leadership in California's anti-gun climate.

[PavePusher]

8. Indeed. Sad to say. n/t

[eqfan592]

6. Once again looking at the comments section on there...

...I'm very encouraged. It seems like the vast majority of folks posting on there are pro-2a, and they are ripping apart all the BS arguments the anti's have to throw out there. Very encouraging sign indeed. And plenty of those comments are from folks who also claim to be leftists/liberals. Nice indeed! :D

[cowcommander]

9. California has a growing pro-2nd group

Check out Calguns.net, it's one of the better gun forums on the internet

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Good Site! For Texans there is:

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/

[spin]

10. Jerry Brown is ahead of the game...

the extreme liberal anti-gun viewpoint of the Democratic Party has been proven wrong as state after state has allowed licensed citizens to carry concealed firearms.

The predictions of "shoot outs on every street and intersection", and "a return to the Wild West" have proven false.

In fact during the period of time when "shall issue" concealed weapons laws came into effect and the sales of firearms (including "assault weapons") increased dramatically the violent crime rate fell.





While it's unfair to state that the decrease in violent crime is due to the increase in concealed carry and the number of firearms in civilian hands, it is not unfair to say that the increase in shall issue concealed carry licenses and the number of firearms in civilian hands DID NOT lead to to corresponding surge in violent crime.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that guns do not cause violence.

[eqfan592]

13. Not a rocket scientist, no.

But you do have to be a somewhat open minded and rational person, and these are characteristics that are often missing among those who are anti-2nd Amendment.

[aikoaiko]

15. Oooo, that has got to hurt.

Anti-gun activists have to feel like pariahs.

[benEzra]

16. Why would it "come as a surprise to many Democrats" that a Dem would support RKBA?

I suppose advocates of various bans thought they were the only ones in the tent?

[Euromutt]

22. I doubt Brown is "supporting the NRA" as such

He just happens to have come to the same conclusion as the NRA-ILA on this particular issue, namely that the 14th Amendment means the entire Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are binding on "the several states." Frankly, I don't see why this is even a controversial view to take; I can't think of another constitutional amendment that hasn't been unquestioningly taken to apply to the states, from freedom of religion, through universal suffrage and (since repealed) Prohibition, to lowering the voting age to 18. If even Prohibition could be binding on the states, why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms be any different?

I imagine the editorial board of SFGate may not be entirely able to wrap their heads around this idea, so the only way they can interpret it is that Jerry Brown, for some inexplicable reason, lent his support to the NRA.