Don't Be Resigned To Any Thoughts That We're Fighting A Losing Battle

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The recently closed thread discussing "Reasonable Restrictions" contained a comment stating how we should accept the fact that we are going to have some gun control, that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is always going to be some "gun control." This statement was prompted by a comment stating that the war against the right to deny a right is winnable. I agree with the latter comment.

It may never be won in the political arena as suggested by the first commenter - politics being what it is - and for that reason the Founding Fathers gave us another arena where such wars against the infringements and encroachments upon our rights can be won. When the political arena is destroying our rights that are protected by the Constitution, we can turn to the Court. We've had more success in the Court - with just the 5 constitutionalists out of the 9 justices - than we've had in any other arena since 1934, and probably a lot longer ago in some of the states.

Our RKBA is being uninfringed in the Court as evidenced with DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. This IS a winnable battle in spite of the unsympathetic political arena. And, who knows. Following the victories in the Court, the political arena may just get on board if for no other reason than to get on the band wagon.

Don't be resigned to any thoughts that we're fighting a losing battle. We can win in the legal arena.

Woody

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree, certainly for the forseeable future. I think the difference that we have now is that we are much more organized than we were say, in 1994. They USED to get away with stuff by slipping it in and passing it before most of us had any idea what was going on. They can't do that anymore.

The momentum is on our side, and I see an ongoing trend of reversals in our favor, followed by a period when our leaders are too afraid of us to implement new laws. For a decade at least, maybe more. This will likely be followed by a terrible event which the current leadership will try to pass new laws against us, and we will have to start all over again.

Slow progress is fine with me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The momentum is on our side, ...

While strangely I am in agree with CC, momentum is a fickle comrade and apt to change sides. Funny how just two years ago we were "losing" and momentum was not on our side.

 

[ArmedBear]

IMO, it's mostly about shifting the Overton Window.

That's something that ALL of us can work on, in some little way, all the time. All you have to do is plant a seed. It could be something as simple as showing that you're a normal, non-scary, intelligent person who shoots .22 matches. Association is HUGE. If people associate guns with scary people (whether backwoods Deliverance stereotypes, ghetto stereotypes, or whatever), then "gun" will have negative connotations. If people associate guns with smart, nice people who are not bloodthirsty, but willing to defend their families, and who shoot for recreation, "gun" will have positive ones.

 

[mljdeckard]

(I have that e-book open in a different window right now.)

 

[RP88]

While strangely I am in agree with CC, momentum is a fickle comrade and apt to change sides. Funny how just two years ago we were "losing" and momentum was not on our side.

momentum has technically been on our side since 1996, when we showed our distaste by ousting 25+ people that we had issue with.

We prevented renewal of the AWB, expanded carry rights, rights for exercising our right to defend ourselves and property, shut down and attacked bills that were defeated unanimously, gotten more positive and intelligent media coverage, and won in two very significant legal battles (Heller and McDonald).

Despite how bad things almost got, we have currently crippled 70 years of gun control in just under six years time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nonetheless, I stand by my comments, which were set out here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6588648&postcount=61.

And if one will read my comments closely, he will see that I never said we were fighting a losing battle. Indeed we have achieved a number of significant wins and will continue to achieve wins, as long as we don't get complacent or start doing dumb things. Humans have a well developed capacity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

But whatever else, we share this nation and this planet with those whose interest, as they perceive them, run counter to ours; and they will continue to oppose us. And as long as they do, they will have their victories. If we're good at what we do, we can try to arrange that their victories be small and don't inconvenience our most fundamental and important interests. But they still will have their victories.

So we can never expect to return to a time in which anyone who wants any sort of weapon may freely acquire it and carry it around everywhere with him. In fact one wonders if such a time of complete freedom existed or when, where and for how long.

Even in the days of the "wild west" some towns at times had ordinances prohibiting the wearing of guns within the town limits. In Texas since the 1870s there have been various restrictions, of one sort or another, on the carrying of a gun on one's person.

...If people associate guns with smart, nice people who are not bloodthirsty, but willing to defend their families, and who shoot for recreation, "gun" will have positive ones....

Yes, and we all have the opportunity to be good ambassadors for guns and shooting. Doing so is, IMHO, one of the most important things we can do for the RKBA. But for those whose antipathy to guns is so extreme and who therefore prefer, for whatever reason, to associate guns with people having less savory characteristics, there will always be enough knuckle draggers around to accommodate the demand.

 

[alohachris]

So what's next? Nationalized concealed carry? Mcdonald allows for the 'keeping', but not the 'bearing' of arms. Dare we dream of a day when the GCA is history?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Mcdonald allows for the 'keeping', but not the 'bearing' of arms....

I see a fair amount of "hand-wringing" about Heller and McDonald only finding a right to keep a gun in the home for self defense. But that was the underlying factual context for each case, and courts decide the cases in front of them. Neither Heller not McDonald involved issues of bearing arms, so the Court could not directly address that question.

But Justice Alito repeatedly stated that the Second Amendment was fully incorporated, and, as we all know, the Second Amendment specifically describes the right to both keep and to bear arms. He also repeatedly, and consistently, referred to the right to "keep and bear arms" in so many words.

We need to remember that in the course of deciding Heller and McDonald, the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

When we all went to bed last Sunday night, we had little prospect for successfully challenging in court many of the most restrictive state gun laws. That all changed by breakfast time, of at least our mid-morning coffee break, on Monday morning. Now we have something to work with.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

But whatever else, we share this nation and this planet with those whose interest, as they perceive them, run counter to ours; and they will continue to oppose us. And as long as they do, they will have their victories. If we're good at what we do, we can try to arrange that their victories be small and don't inconvenience our most fundamental and important interests. But they still will have their victories.

Every one of those "victories" the anti-gun crowd has had have been unconstitutional. If the anti-gun-rights crowd wants a real, lasting victory to further their "interests", they need to sponsor and achieve an amendment to the Constitution granting appropriate power to Congress. Until then, WE have the Constitution on our side, WE can challenge those unconstitutional laws and defeat those unconstitutional strides and steps the anti-gun-rights crowd achieves. WE have the Supreme Law of the Land on our side. What do they have? Fear-mongering, sold-out politicians, activist judges, and other emanations from the bovine sphincter.

Let me add this: If the anti-gun-rights crowd wants to amend the Constitution and actually starts, don't trust them. They have proven they will not abide the Constitution as it stands and there lies all the proof one needs to know they will not abide the Constitution once amended.

So we can never expect to return to a time in which anyone who wants any sort of weapon may freely acquire it and carry it around everywhere with him.

[sarcasm]Fiddletown: Ever the optimist![/sarcasm]

Yes, we can. Always strive for perfection lest you end up struggling to maintain mediocrity. Fiddletown would have us "try to arrange that their victories be small and don't inconvenience our most fundamental and important interests". If ever I've seen a plea for mediocrity, that's it!

Woody

 

[BHP FAN]

oh boy, woody, that is the best I've heard it put yet! you musn't blame fiddletown, though... I grew up watching the gradual erosion of my gun rights,and until Heller, thought it was inevitable that I'd watch them eventually dissapear altogether.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Woody, enjoy your alternate universe.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Dare we dream of a day when the GCA is history?

Dream all you want, but follow up that dream with action.

Woody

 

[Buck Snort]

Yes, we can. Always strive for perfection lest you end up struggling to maintain mediocrity. Fiddletown would have us "try to arrange that their victories be small and don't inconvenience our most fundamental and important interests". If ever I've seen a plea for mediocrity, that's it!

Woody

You see a plea for mediocrity, I see a plea for hard nosed reality.

 

[TexasBill]

It's a bit strange all the attention that has been focused on Chicago, New York and California. There are many, many other battles - winnable battles that need to be engaged. Right to carry in restaurants, open carry in states that don't permit it, the end of purchase permits and state-level registration.

For example, here in Texas obtaining a CHL is a long process. Once you have completed the state-mandated training and submitted your application, the Department of Public Safety has up to nine months to make a decision (the normal period is six months but the DPS can tack on another three at its discretion). Open carry is absolutely prohibited, even when carrying your handgun from your house to your car. It's better than the days when we weren't allowed to carry a handgun at all, but there's still a way to go. With McDonald a done deal, we are better able to lobby our legislature to improve things.

Look at laws and restrictions in your own state. Considering that it is now politically palatable to be pro-gun, what could a grass-roots movement do to remove some of those restrictions?

 

[mjb]

If the liberals want to pass gun laws after losing these court battles about our right to bear arms, then they have to understand that they may be able to pass laws to keep felons, and drug addicts from having firearms. However, any laws that is intended to keep honest people from having them is a violation of the constitution. Registration laws is only intended to consficate firearms. Right now in Chicago they are passing laws that is intended to persuade people to have firearms for protection.