Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

[Cavalier Knight]

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

The Brady Campaign expects pro-gun groups to use the Supreme Court's decision in the DC case to challenge a gun ban in Chicago, the major city whose gun laws come closest to the nation's capital.

Although the Brady Campaign expects the Chicago ordinance to be challenged, it thinks that it may survive because it does not have the restrictions on long guns like the ones found in Washington, D.C.

The Chicago law may also survive because a decision in the D.C. case will likely not resolve the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and other cities that are not federal enclaves.

Looking beyond the Supreme Court's D.C. gun ban case to the race for the White House, the Brady Campaign views Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as a better friend to gun control advocates than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

LINK

 

[ArmedBear]

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

That's strange. They say they want to do exactly what they wanted to do before. And I think that people are perfectly aware that incremental infringement has always been their goal. I'm not sure how a good Heller decision will remove "this fear factor".

 

[Cougfan2]

Helmke is trying to paint lipstick on a pig. A loss is a loss and it is a BIG TIME loss for them, but don't expect them to fold their tent. I predict they start going after ammo big time.

 

[Prince Yamato]

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

Except that the weapons ARE used in home defense and can be used in defense OUTSIDE of homes. Nice try Paul. Also, hunting rifles are more dangerous.

And curbing sales is a violation of interstate commerce... nice try again Paul...

 

[yokel]

Their mere existence should be seen as an affront to all exponents of greater liberty for the mass of citizens.

 

[Harvster]

At least ol' Paul didn't drop the old "triple dog super dangerous class of weapons". Then we would surely see a new ban on these pieces of evil incarnate capable of hurling lead blizzards through all types or armor, buildings, crowds etc.

 

[damien]

For the gun banners, there's a loss, there's a huge loss, there's an epic loss, there's a complete and total loss, and then there's a loss on the Heller case.

 

[Chipperman]

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home.

So we institute a 90 day mandatory waiting period while the FBI and ATF do a complete background check including "inspecting" the home

Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan.

So we ban any gun capable of penetrating body armor, after all, only criminals need powerful boolets and hi capacity guns.

"Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

So we institute a 1 gun a year policy. After all you only need one gun to defend yourself anyway.

 

[divemedic]

Although the Brady Campaign expects the Chicago ordinance to be challenged, it thinks that it may survive because it does not have the restrictions on long guns like the ones found in Washington, D.C.

To respond to that, I give you the words of Chief Justice Roberts:

So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Looking beyond the Supreme Court's D.C. gun ban case to the race for the White House, the Brady Campaign views Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as a better friend to gun control advocates than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

[sincerity] Oh, say it's not so! [/sincerity]

 

[RP88]

wait...did anyone catch that? He said that they lost the battle on what the 2A means, yet gives his own definition in order to justify things like another AWB or more restrictions.

Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right.

That's because your position is WRONG! Give it up.

Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home,"

Stop looking through this legal peephole. The second amendment doesn't say "..the right of the people to self defense in the home shall not be adversely affected" or anything like that. Ban=Infringed. It doesn't require a need or to demonstrate a purpose. Just because the Brady group is full of cowards that refuse to defend themselves doesn't mean the rest of the country must stoop to their level to appease this minority.

 

[MarshallDodge]

It's called a wolf in sheep's clothing and they just showed their hand. They will not be happy until ALL guns are taken from law abiding citizens. These people hold the belief that passing a law will protect you or posting a "gun-free zone" sign will keep the criminal element out like some kind of force-field.

They found out early in the battle that US citizens would not be happy with a huge cut in their rights so they went after what they thought was an easy target - assault rifles- and they won. Thank goodness somebody was smart enough to write a sunset clause into the bill.

Back then most of the pro-gun people and NRA members just cared about their hunting rifles or shotguns. I heard many of them say how they didn't care for the AR-15 or the AK. What kind of sporting purpose do they serve? The increasing popularity of these rifles, the rise of concealed carry, and the fact that the AWB did nothing to lower crime will make it harder to pass anymore laws. We also have people to thank like John Lott and Gary Kleck for their writing skills exposing the fact that more guns do not cause more crime.

The NRA has been calling their bluff for years, you give them an inch and they will take a mile. Today it's registration or assault rifle bans and tomorrow it will be something else they will be after. They are like termites, little nibbles at a time until your foundation has completely eroded.

 

[lance22]

 

[Titan6]

These clowns still are trying to say the case was about home defense. I know they are insane in their support of their cause but the tapestry of lies is getting badly frayed at the edges.

 

[H088]

The anti gun craze of the 90s is over, if anything America is becoming more and more pro gun.

The Brady bunch is on the losing end of this which is great.

 

[Tyris]

Stop looking through this legal peephole. The second amendment doesn't say "..the right of the people to self defense in the home shall not be adversely affected" or anything like that.

We've made progress and they've given up ground.
In the past they'd be framing this conversation in terms of "hunting".

-T

 

[Tom Servo]

I predict they start going after ammo big time.

Bingo. Look at initiatives like ballistics fingerprinting and bullet serialisation. Either would drive the cost of ammunition to the point where most people would stop shooting, and very few folks will want to take it up as a hobby.

Couple this with soaring mortgage rates and gas prices, and shooting starts to look like an expensive hobby to an outsider, even with ammo prices where they are currently.

After all, the 2A doesn't specifically mention "ammunition." Bans on "armor piercing" target ammo and "cop-killing" hollowpoints don't count as a ban on guns, they could argue.

I think Heller's a big (and long overdue) win for us in the culture, and for the wider American mindset (until recently, had Joe Sixpack really given any thought to the 2A?), but I'm not turning my back on the antis.

 

[XD_fan]

Lions and Tigers and Bear, Oh My!

The tap dancing has already started. The fact that Helmke is saying they lost pretty much confirms they've known all along their window of opportunity was very small. And it looks like it may be closing rapidly.

I like the way he keeps saying that infringement really isn't infringement. Least he didn't throw the kid card.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home,"

Note, they are actually talking about self-defense and not hunting. That in itself proves that they have conceded on some level. Let's keep fighting these fools. This is great!

 

[Technosavant]

Stories like this just warm my heart. And they say nobody reports good news anymore. The Brady bunch admits defeat in their attempts to get people to ignore the Constitution. Pity.

Anybody else raising a glass for this? And do we have anybody into molecular chemistry? We'll need that expertise in order to make a violin small enough for their sad song.

 

[Big45]

Banning a super dangerous class of weapons

Haha Oh my God I want to donkeypunch this moron.

 

[Orange_Magnum]

Why don't Brady and his pack move to Chicago and have a hands on experience on the gun free zones? Just die off.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan.

But D.C. claimed it was handguns that were "super dangerous." Which is it?

 

[FieroCDSP]

Just imagine.....Somewhere in DC, in a smoke-filled back room, a group of Antis are sitting at a conference table. They're quiet. Some are dejected. Some are angry. The rest don't know what to feel, but they're pretty sure when they do eventually feel something, it won't be elation.

As the coffee in their non-CA compliant foam cups grows tepid, they struggle to think of new ways to convince the American people that they are wrong about needing guns to protect themselves. "Why", one woman cries. "Why don't they understand that we're only wanting to do what's best for them?"

Why?

Because it's all a friggin lie. As more and more facts come out with which to face the emotional dribble, the more unanswered crime that occurs in the small-towns, as well as the cities, the more the American people can tell what is real and what is fiction.

Not to mention the one thing every American hates is being told they can't have or do something.
Keep up the good fight.