Brady Center: The Second Amendment Threatens All Gun Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't that the point of the Bill of Rights?


Normally considered liberals, Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both sympathetic to "reasonable gun rights," [gun law expert Irwin] Nowick[*] added. A narrowly crafted individual right could win 7-2, he said.
Click to expand...
Interesting to see an anti's take on "reasonable rights" verses "reasonable restrictions" of rights.


“As soon as you separate the Second Amendment from its traditional attachment to the militia, you open up a Pandora’s box,” Hennigan said. “It’s an open invitation to right-wing activist judges, and there’s a lot of them out there.”
Click to expand...
Rampant liberty. What would the Founding Fathers say?


*But Irwin Nowick, a senior consultant in the Senate Rules Committee who is widely seen as a leading expert on firearms law
Click to expand...
...and a flaming anti-rights "expert."
 
post the article, not a link.

Brady Center: The Second Amendment Threatens All Gun Laws

Jacob Sullum | February 8, 2008, 12:31pm

A story in Capitol Weekly, which covers California politics, speculates about the fallout from a Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller overturning the District of Columbia's gun ban. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next month, with a ruling expected by the end of June. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, is excited:

Any definition of the Second Amendment as an individual right is going to open up all kinds of legal avenues for us to overturn gun laws. We will change our focus from lobbying to legal action because the Legislature will be neutered. Any time they sponsor legislation we think is unconstitutional, we will challenge it.

Paredes mentions California's bans on "assault weapons" and .50-caliber guns as possible targets. But Robert Levy, the Cato Institute legal scholar who bankrolled the case, injects a note of caution:

"It lays the framework for challenging gun laws nationwide," Levy said. "It's a necessary step," he added, but not sufficient on its own. Lower courts would still need to rule that the case applied to state laws, he said, though it is likely they would; in almost all cases, courts have found that the Bill of Rights applies to state laws. Even then, he added, courts may still find that some types of guns could still be regulated, such as so-called assault weapons.

Knowing that he is supposed to disagree with anything Levy says, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to End Gun Violence takes the opposite position:

Bob Levy has a very strong vested interest in making statements like that. He wants to make this case seem as unthreatening as possible. If you try to pin these guys down on which guns laws they think are consistent with the Second Amendment, they won't tell you.

So here we have a Second Amendment advocate conceding that some forms of gun control could be found constitutional even if the courts recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms, while the gun control advocate argues that every firearm regulation is threatened. I love it. Here's something else that surprised me:

Normally considered liberals, Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both sympathetic to "reasonable gun rights," [gun law expert Irwin] Nowick added. A narrowly crafted individual right could win 7-2, he said.

Which reinforces Levy's point that a victory in D.C. v. Heller would be just the beginning of figuring out which gun laws are consistent with the Second Amendment. As Dan Polsby put it in reason back in 1996, the courts will finally have to treat the Second Amendment as "normal constitutional law." Last year I welcomed the ruling the Supreme Court is now reviewing, the federal appeals court decision declaring the D.C. gun law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
many THR users are in locations where they cannot access links to some pages. I can read THR in my office, but www.gunbroker.com and many other sites are off limits, and attempts to navigate there get logged.
 
Plus, some newspapers move their articles to archive after a certain amount of time, and the link may cease to function, or you may need to move to a pay site.
 
Sheriff, news headlines also are notorious for links being changed or dying as they're trickled down the list of hot-to-cold news items.
 
These folks are so insane. It is like the emperor has no clothes. They keep repeating the collective only nonsense until they actually believe it exist. I guess I am child like because I never saw it and never will.

As my redneck grand daddy would say about their argument. That dog won't hunt. NEVER DID.
 
post the article, not a link.
Click to expand...
...What's so hard about a link?
Click to expand...
Many websites are too full of junk to download with dialup. No broadband where I live. Mainstream news sites are particularly lousy with animations, advertisements and junk to the point some never finish rendering. Plus most links are rarely static (404 not found).

Without ads and avatars, THR remains dialup-friendly. Thanks for posting the article along with the link as a reference.
 
Brady Center: The Second Amendment Threatens All Gun Laws
Click to expand...

Umm.......yeah. It's supposed to. Just like our gun rights threaten the intentions of would be dictators and mass murderers.
 
WoW! After all this time they FINALLY get it :)

That it took them that long is the sad part..... That's like 3rd grade Social Studies....
 
post the article, not a link.
Click to expand...
I tend not to do that. Ever seen the little © symbol?

Snips for criticism are fine. I think whole articles violate copyright, though I am sympathetic to the benefits of avoiding blocked sites, dead links, and advertising.

See also Brad Templeton's 10 Big Myths about copyright explained -
"My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.
Click to expand...

What else would you expect from 'Librarian'?
 
I tend not to [post whole articles]. Ever seen the little © symbol?
Click to expand...

I've been told by someone who teaches (c) law that if they permit you to forward the article from their site, you can post it so long as you give full attribution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top