After 'Heller' Reason Can Prevail.The End of the NRA as We Know It?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Duke Junior

member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
685
Location
Cherokee County,North Carolina
A controversial article appearing to try to balance both sides of Justice Scalia's majority decision.

After 'Heller,' Reason Can Prevail
The National Law Journal
David M. Kennedy
September 23, 2008

http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1202424712957


The U.S. Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision last term, with its historic affirmation of an individual right to keep and bear arms, is being read as a harbinger of doom by gun-control advocates, and as cause for celebration by the National Rifle Association and its allies. In fact, it could play out exactly the other way around. District of Columbia v. Heller may finally open the door to sensible gun policy in the United States, and it could be the beginning of the end for the NRA, at least as we know it today.

Let's face facts. Even before the Court's decision, with something like 40 percent of U.S. households owning some 200 million firearms, nearly three-quarters of Americans believing the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun, and -- like it or not -- a strong historical gun culture, America's guns were not going away. The strongest gun-control agenda -- get rid of them -- has always, as a political matter, been a fantasy. That has not stopped what is in fact a minority political element from militating for outright bans. And that, in turn, let what is in fact a fringe element of the pro-gun community paint even the most moderate and common-sense gun-control steps as fights to the death in the U.S. culture war over firearms. Waiting periods? Trigger locks? All just a prelude to granola-eating pacifists seizing your grandfather's deer hunting rifle ... while the fundraising machinery spun ever faster.

Well, that's over now. For the first time in history, America's guns are officially safe. And while I've no position on Justice Antonin Scalia's historical scholarship or jurisprudence, I'm confident that his opinion is a work of genius as a political compromise. Gun grabbing, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, is now officially off the table. Little, if anything, else is.

And guess what? Gun owners turn out to be pretty reasonable people. In a recent poll conducted for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, 59 percent of gun owners said reducing gun violence was "very important"; 83 percent of gun owners favored background checks of all buyers at gun shows; and 88 percent of gun owners favored mandatory reporting of stolen guns. Crucially, even NRA supporters have said they do not support the NRA's extremist positions. This is not exactly a lunatic fringe.

Ordinary people with guns have never been the problem in the United States: In this, the NRA and other gun advocates have always been right. Recent findings produced as part of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence by my colleague Robin Engle at the University of Cincinnati, illustrate what is an overwhelming consensus in the research literature: On balance, people involved in gun crime are far from ordinary. In Cincinnati, about 60 violent groups -- gangs, drug crews and the like -- with around 1,100 total members, or less than 0.3 percent of the city's population, are associated with about three-quarters of the homicides in the city. Virtually none of them acquired and possessed their guns legally. Existing laws forbidding selling guns to, and gun possession by, felons, juveniles, addicts, the mentally ill and those convicted of domestic violence actually do a pretty good job of covering core violence issues.

COMMON-SENSE STEPS TO TAKE

What we've needed, for a long time, is common-sense steps to prevent the illegal trafficking and diversion of guns to people everybody agrees shouldn't have them. Here's where the fringe gun-grabbing arguments -- on both sides -- have made common sense impossible. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is forbidden by law from computerizing its firearms records, on the argument that they could become a de facto registration system, which could then be used to inform gun confiscation. The famed "gun show loophole" is a myth. The reality is far worse: Federal gun law only applies to "dealers," who become dealers by voluntarily announcing themselves to ATF. Everybody else can legally sell guns without any of the federal requirements, at gun shows or anywhere else. Amendments filed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., with NRA backing, forbade ATF from publishing reports on crime-gun traces that indicated local and national patterns of trafficking and diversion, and prevented police departments from sharing this information. Jersey City, N.J., was refused data from crime guns it had submitted itself to ATF for tracing. (No, I'm not making this up.)

It would be very simple to make a huge difference here. Let ATF do its job. Eliminate the unregulated "secondary" market. Mandate that stolen guns be reported to the police. Register handguns, the most important component of gun violence. Mandate criminal background checks for gun-store employees. Reinstitute the national crime-gun tracing program the Bush administration shut down. Make penalties for trafficking guns commensurate with, at least, those for trafficking drugs. These are simple, common-ground steps that would really matter. We've been distracted from such common-sense moves by the far more dramatic culture war over guns. But that, as of last term, is over and done with.

Thank you, Antonin. Thank you.
 
Gun grabbing, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, is now officially off the table.

That’s one way to look at Heller, the other way is that 4 of 9 justices said it was perfectly acceptable for the state to jail a citizen for keeping a handgun in his home.
 
The battle is not over. It was a very close vote as TT said, and supreme decisions get changed frequently.
 
Since you asked....

Will it actually matter if you are permitted to own a gun when a box of 22's cost $1000.00 and you have to have a firearm license and your ammunition is registered and all unregistered ammo and reloading equipment and supplies will be a felony to possess? Math never was my strong subject, but tabulate how much a $25 box of 270 shells cost after a 500% tax + local sales tax.:what:

Heller did not end the need for the NRA, just as the passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights still left us fighting for our rights.
The constitution is not clear as to exactly by whom the militia is well regulated or what shall those regulations be.
Consider if you will, a Constitutional Convention. With a radical extremist as president, and enough radical, liberal extremists as congress, the second ammendment could literally be repealed!
When you read the Bill of Rights, it could someday read, "Ammendment II - Repealed, 2009."
I say we need the NRA, GOA, and similar groups NOW MORE THAN EVER!
 
Last edited:
The article brushes too broadly, but the point is a sound one. I made a similar point in the runup to the decision. I believe the development of Heller in the lower courts will lead to a split in our ranks between those who are satisfied with the courts' protection and those who want to push further.
 
Phew. I'm glad THAT'S over!

Now that "Heller" was decided, there's no more need to be concerned about laws preventing or punishing self-defense.

Like, ever since Roe v. Wade, nobody thinks about abortion any more. And I'm glad that Kelo vs. New London cleared up any issues regarding eminent domain.
 
I believe the development of Heller in the lower courts will lead to a split in our ranks between those who are satisfied with the courts' protection and those who want to push further.

Well said,Cosmoline.
This is my fear and the reason I posted the article.And if the Stock Market continues to tank,that one issue will give Obama the Presidency.
If it rights itself and recovers in the next 6 weeks, McCain will eke out a win and our future gun rights will be in much better shape.Iraq has faded to the background.
My fingers and portfolio are crossed.
 
RANT ON

This is the second post in 2 minutes I've seen with this BS comment about "500% tax on ammunition".

Constructive banning of ammunition via taxation etc etc is completely off the table post Heller. Not happening unless 2A gets overturned via a new constitutional amendment.

Put up or shut up, where does this come from.....

RANT OFF
 
This article is actually a smart play for the gun-hater side- it gives the appearance of reasonableness, doesn’t propose any bans, but still gets in the very valuable (to the anti-gun side) idea of repealing the Tiahrt amendment. Heller won’t prevent gun-haters from misusing gun trace data to sue firearms manufacturers out of business.
 
even NRA supporters have said they do not support the NRA's extremist positions

HA - that made me laugh out loud! Does the NRA have 'extremist positions' ???

I bet when the next 'Assault Weapons Ban' comes along (and I believe one is coming) they won't put up more than a token fight. After all - they didn't fight too hard against the 1994 version.

They don't fight for people that own NFA firearms - they don't seem to care much about people that own BMG's either. AR's and AK's ??? Well - you don't 'hunt' with them and they fail the 'sporting arms' test ... so they don't seem to care.

To me it seems like the NRA has shifted it's focus to hunters and target shooters.

Now if they want to talk about organizations that are even more pro-2nd Amendment than the NRA, they can talk to the GOA or the JPFO. Here in Virginia we have the VCDL - even they take a tougher stance than the NRA.
 
The end of NRA? Hardly, now the battles will begin in places like Chicago and NYC that seem to think that the Constitution does not apply to them or their subjects.
 
For the first time in history, America's guns are officially safe.

This is almost certainly not true, and therefore everything that follows is also untrue. As we've already seen vis. D.C., anti-gun politicians don't feel any particular need to obey one silly little Supreme Court ruling.
 
"500% tax on ammunition"

That's a bit exaggerated, but it does I think correctly express the new threat to the RKBA. It will be hidden, not open. Not so much a tax on ammo as a series of regulations to choke off primer production and importation, for example.
 
No way the NRA will fade. We still have the anti-gun proposals strongly in mind, in folks like Obama, Pelosi, Connior, etc., etc.

Coding on handguns and on ammo. Taxes on ammo. Various efforts at some sort of ban on EBR-type stuff. And, possible further restrictions or complications in the paperwork, as with the 4473. Add in some additional hostility toward dealers from new administrative bureaucrats at BATFE.

Winning Heller was but winning a battle. The war is nowhere near over.

Art
 
Wow, and here all this time I thought the NRA was for promoting citizen marksmanship, sporting competitions, etc. I think the article views the ILA-NRA as the only real part of the NRA. Even if the legal questions go away, which it won't, as many above have pointed out, the NRA was begun for another purpose and still does a great job in that arena.

I just commented to the article on the law review.
 
I sent Mr. Kennedy this reply:

Dear Prof. Kennedy,

I read your article After ‘Heller,’ Reason Can Prevail in this month’s National Law Journal with great interest. I applaud your conclusion that yes, gun owners are quite reasonable people and hope it does not come as a shock that over 40% of the US population is in fact quite normal. Most of us are not sitting around in full camouflage, waiting for the apocalypse and cheering whenever an innocent is killed by a firearm. Even the NRA, which you cite as a “lunatic fringe” has a longstanding and effective program aimed at preventing needless accidental firearms-related deaths.

What I find interesting, is that your frank assessment that 0.3% of a city’s population is responsible for the majority of gun-related crime, yet your suggested “common-sense” solutions are targeted at the 99.7% of the population not responsible for these crimes. The so-called “unlicensed dealers” at gun shows are private citizens like you and I, selling personal firearms. Certainly some of these fall into the wrong hands, just like some portion of “unlicensed dealers” of automobiles (also private citizens) sell cars that are used criminally. Shall we ban all transactions between private citizens?

Your suggestion for databases of gun owners and firearms also has little track record of success. Your biography indicates you have some experience in Massachusetts, where I grew up. As you may be aware, all gun owners in MA are tracked in a database: the same database that tracks sex offenders and violent criminals. My 60+ year old mother and I, on the whole pretty reasonable people, were handled by the state in the same manner as rapists and murders, treatment which has personally soured me to such an idea in addition to the lack of demonstrable success by systems that track legal gun owners.

As you concluded in your article, gun owners are quite reasonable people. I have yet to meet anyone who owns firearms who relishes violence or expresses anything but sadness when the 0.3% of the population you cite inflicts violence upon others, especially innocents. Many of us firmly support things like background checks, swift and harsh punishment for gun criminals and measures that do not punish the 99.7% of the law-abiding population, or humiliatingly place us among the ranks of child molesters for no crime other than exercising a right.

I hope that both sides can drop the name calling and terms like “common sense, lunatic fringe, etc,” as there is great opportunity to work together to stop the activates of the true lunatic fringe (your 0.3%) without further regulating those that have never demonstrated any harm to society.
 
What we, and the NRA, SAF, and other pro-gun groups can look for, post-Heller, is about 20-30 years of litigation or worse. Obama's website now says that he wants to repeal Tihart (which kept Bloomberg from getting trace data so that Hizzoner could send lawyers to sue gun shops out of existence) and to make the AWB permanent, among other things.

Can you imagine what will happen if a bunch of flaming left-wing lawyers get appointed to the Supreme Court?
 
alot of Democrats (not enough, but alot) are running on pro-gun stances. That may hurt the gun control stance of the democratic party as a whole, not to mention that it loses votes.

An AWB can still be overturned through the courts the same way the DC ban fif. Problem there is that it'll be a harder argument to make convincing to a bunch of liberals.

Any liberal appointees to the SCOTUS will likely replace aging liberals who are already on it, so the count is unlikely to change for another 6-10 years, should another case come in that time.

Also, the NRA is more liberal than anything. They cave to pretty much everything passed by liberal lawmakers so long as they can keep their deer rifles, so what did they do when Heller came up? The hid and didnt say a word about it. No endorsement, no viewpoint until AFTER the decision, etc. They're a bunch of cowards now, and that is why alot of people do not like them. Many other organizations go out of their way to protect gun rights. The NRA just throws money out and hopes that some of it sticks, and only really put up a fight when someone comes after hunting rifles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top