Brady Campaign Worried About Effects of Heller

sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons.

Click to expand...

We can certainly hope so!

judicial activism at its worst

Click to expand...

Uh, even if the DC Circuit misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment (not my opinion of course, but if it did), this is not judicial activism. If a decision points to the words and history of the Constitution itself, and the facts are generally accurate, the decision cannot be honestly called "activist" whether or not someone likes the decision.

The term "judicial activism" tends to mean "any decision I don't like", when you look at it, but if there is a meaningful definition, the term means that the judges have ruleed according to their own policy preferences, without regard to the words of the Constitution. It is silly to complain that the SCOTUS as the arbiter of whether a statute is constitutional has not deferred to the Legislature, though of course people on both sides do complain. SCOTUS is not SUPPOSED to defer to the Legislature, or even to a majority vote, but rather to the Constitution itself.

Roe v. Wade is called "activist" by those who don't like it, because they don't like it. That's just plain wrong. However, if someone calls Roe v. Wade into question because nobody on the Right or Left can point to anyplace in the Constitution that would support it (or oppose it), that's a legitimate criticism.

Full disclosure: I'm all for abortion. I often meet people who should have been aborted. I think retroactive abortion should be legal. Furthermore, I don't have any real objection if the court errs on the side of individual rights over government control.

But it does really concern me when the court seems to decide things however the hell it wants. That's my problem with decisions like Roe v. Wade. They lead me to believe that the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing and therefore offers no protection whatsoever, even of enumerated rights, when 5 old people don't feel like those rights should matter, as in Kelo or Raich, where part of the 5th Amendment, and the entire Commerce Clause, were just declared to mean nothing on the whims of 5 judges.

It ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent

Click to expand...

Really? What precedent would that be?

Really? What precedent would that be?

Click to expand...

That would be Miller.

-T

Too much beer on the Cheerios again.

That would be Miller.

Click to expand...

Miller is not a precedent as to whether 2A is an individual or collective right. No matter what the Bradys tell you.

I like how Brady always claims they aren't about gun prohibition; but whenever a blatant, outright ban on firearms is proposed, they are right there behind it with support and wailing.

Miller does not address the whole "collective right" question, which actually was invented around that time anyway.

Paul and Sarah, judicial activism at its worst is whatever favors anything I don't like. Judicial activism at its best favors whatever I do like.

We need to get on the same page if there is to be the chance of meaningful dialogue.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment.”

Click to expand...

For once I find myself agreeing with something from the Brady Bunch.

I sort of have the delicious feeling that they're about to have their collective heads handed to them around the ides of March.

Roe v. Wade is called "activist" by those who don't like it, because they don't like it. That's just plain wrong. However, if someone calls Roe v. Wade into question because nobody on the Right or Left can point to anyplace in the Constitution that would support it (or oppose it), that's a legitimate criticism.

Click to expand...

Interesting point, and it's one that gives me hope in the Heller case. If the SCOTUS can find abortion in this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Then I have little to fear in them not finding that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

Interesting point, and it's one that gives me hope in the Heller case. If the SCOTUS can find abortion in this:

Click to expand...

As a point of law, I'm not clear why they just didn't find it in the 9th and the 10th. People always act as if the only rights they have are the ones listed in the first 8 amendments. If people would just recognize their rights are basically vast and limitless until they infringe on another's then you wouldn't have the USSC making up crap as they go to justify their decisions. It is like arguing about the right to use your money buy a car with someone who has never thought about it.

The Brady-ites should be worried about as much as the NRA. If it goes the correct way then they'll still have something to scream about and lawsuits to support "reasonable" restrictions. Honestly, they don't even have to change their propoganda much.

Deavis, and Justin, I do believe evverbody drawing a federal paycheck is very scared of the 9th and 10th amendments, because they declare undefined, but quite large, rights and powers of the People, and the States, respectively.

Orthonym,

There are quite a few Socialist leaning individuals who aren't drawing a Federal paycheck or any other type of government paycheck for that matter.

As I remember, Bloomberg is one of those who refuses to accept a salary from the city of New York.

Los Angeles, Calif.: The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report in 2004 stating that no proof has been found that gun control has lessened violence. In light of this, what justification do you find for continuing to promote additional restrictions on your fellow law-abiding citizens, especially when gun ownership is on the rise and levels of crime and violence are at historic lows?

James and Sarah Brady: In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check. Our purpose is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Since the Brady Law passed 1.3 million illegal purchasers have been stopped by the background checks. We must now be sure ALL sales undergo background checks.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/29/DI2006032901373.html

Brady Campaign is considering yet another name change to the organization: Irrelevant

"Collective Right" is an oxymoron, existing only in the sophistries of shysters. The way the Hoplophobes say it the right can only be exercised when ordered by the Fedgov. The Nat'l Guard does not "keep" their arms- they are issued by the State when it deems it necessary and collected when the exercise is over. How can that possibly be the right spelled out in 2A?

In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check.

Click to expand...

Yet they throw their support behind every draconian restriction that comes down the pike. And no media "professional" ever calls them out on that.