Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

Uh... more people are killed with hands and feet than are killed with long guns - and assault weapons are a tiny fraction of long guns. So exactly how is this a "super-dangerous" weapon? Hell, you can't even meet some hypothetical intermediate scrutiny test for dangerousness with the statistics on assault weapons.

Of course, the Brady Bunch considers your bolt-action .22LR to be just as much of an assault weapon as any other firearm. They just won't tell you that until they have whittled down the number of gun owners to the point where they can get away with it.

 

[Bartkowski]

I don't get why anyone wants to take away the RKBA. If you look at the statistics, and look at all of the other reasons supporting the RKBA the only logical choice is to support the right.

What do they really think they will achieve?

 

[FieroCDSP]

What do they really think they will achieve?

Relevance. It's about power and making their mark in American history. It doesn't matter that it's a smelly, brown smear of a mark, just that it's a mark. Most of America remembers the '90s AWB, and the name of the group that fronted it. Now, the Brady Campaign is nearly a nobody in the politcal world. That's what they fear most. If they can skew the numbers and instill fear in enough people, they can be great again.

"We have determined you to be Obsolete."

 

[RP88]

How can they really go after bullets, though? The only states that have picked it up are your gun-haters. Alot of states that have passed laws forbidding law suits against gun manufacturers for trivial reasons. I'd bet that alot of the reps and senators on a federal level will not support any sort of actual bill for it, since they would hopefully see it as another attack on the gun industry.

 

[CDignition]

I think we are in big trouble.. judging by the very stupid and wrong decision the SCOTUS made on the Gitmo stuff, were all in for a big Ouch.. Its gonna go against guns and for the banners..

 

[Robert Hairless]

I predict they start going after ammo big time.

Of course. So then the NRA and its lawyers will attack that front. It's a bit naive to expect anything less than an ongoing battle. A fundamental right deserves nothing less.

And those who don't belong to the NRA or support it will write a couple of postcards and some e-mails, take a friend shooting, or clean a gun and call it a mighty blow for our Second Amendment rights while they attack the NRA.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Concur with everyone else on ammo bans, tax or restrictions. Didn't Caliphornia pass a $3 per box tax?

 

[Gray Peterson]

I think we are in big trouble.. judging by the very stupid and wrong decision the SCOTUS made on the Gitmo stuff, were all in for a big Ouch.. Its gonna go against guns and for the banners..

No. Read the actual decision of the court before you actually say that:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

How is a court decision bringing Habeas Corpus back after Congress basically repealed it two years ago a bad thing?

Specifically:

We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

I don't understand how any gun owner, how any person who values the second amendment to be an individual right, would regard the complete repeal of Habeas Corpus for those that the President declares an "enemy combatant", which is a nebulous term which can easily be declared against "domestic terrorists" (read gun owners) as a good thing, and to regard this decision to be a bad thing.

You don't gain respect for the RKBA by spitting on all other constitutional rights and expect anyone to buy your argument that you're for civil liberties of gun owners. Without habeas corpus, your right to own a firearm matters not if the government can just disappear you into a van and then fly you off to a foreign country to be tortured and killed.

 

[leadcounsel]

"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."

:banghead: They just don't get it do they!? The 2A isn't about self defense, it's about individuals owning military weapons to suppress foreign and domenstic tyranny!

Basically in this article they're saying, "Well, we lost. Despite the fact that the founding fathers, the Supreme Court and 75% of people think we (Brady) are wrong, we're going to continue to try to ban these evil children killers."

What absolute morons!

 

[Bobarino]

Lance22 - that is PERFECT! nicely done....

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

this is precisely the reason i own guns today. my parents told me i couldn't when i was kid. they also told me i couldn't have a motorcycle, (have a street bike and a dirtbike) i couldn't take flying lessons, (got my PPL in '03 thank you) and couldn't run a business (been an entrepreneur for 9.5 years now). yep, telling me i can't have or do something is the surest way to get me to do or have it.

Bobby

 

[Robert Hairless]

What absolute morons!

Not so. Nobody is perfect. There always is room for improvement:

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.

Expect to see that improvement after President Obama takes office in January 2009.

 

[N1150X]

Basically in this article they're saying, "Well, we lost. Despite the fact that the founding fathers, the Supreme Court and 75% of people think we (Brady) are wrong, we're going to continue to try to ban these evil children killers."

sounds like a politician I know who refuses to give up even though she lost

 

[metrotps]

Quote:
Expect to see that improvement after President Obama takes office in January 2009.
You mean after this country becomes an "Obama-nation" ?

 

[icebones]

i skimmed over the text and saw "SUPER DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPONS"

ok, i promise only to buy just the regular not-as-deadly assault weapons.

once again, ignorance at its finest.

 

[icebones]

babarino, dude you sound just like me,

heres what i heard from my parents:
jake you cant get a motorcycle
jake you dont want to buy a chevy truck, get a honda
jake, you dont need to get a boat
jake, why do did you buy all those new guns
jake, you dont need to buy your own house yet...

 

[ozwyn]

Brady bunch is going to have a bad few years... why?

because both presidential candidates and at best fair weather friends of gun rights and at worst enemies who don;t advertise it loudly enough.

And we know it.

And we know we can gain legestlative victories and courtroom victories.

When Heller comes down it will be the START, not the end of the campeign to retake gun rights.

They think they will have breathing room to fall back and regroup, but I think you will see on every level a flood of new lawsuits and legestlative actions of a pro-gun nature.

 

[LAK]

"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."

Funny, what has "self defense" to do with "an individual right to keep and bear arms" in the context of differentiating between small arms?

And if he wants to ban a super dangerous class of weapons, he ought to be looking at what is already (some still under developement) developed and in the hands of Uncle Sam in the form of so-called "less than lethal" (and some very lethal) weapons.

Still, I'd like to know what all super duper weapons he has in mind in addition to black rifles.

-------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[kludge]

The Second Amendment doesn't say "keep and bear guns."

The Second Amendment doesn't say the people "have a right to self defense in the home."

The Second Amendment doesn't protect "the right of the people to hunt."

The Founders said that "freedom of the press" and "a well-regulated militia" were the cornerstones necessary to maintain a "free state."

They knew exactly whereof they spoke and did not mince any words.

The Second Amendment protects "arms".

Guns are arms. Bullets are arms. Gunpowder is [sic] arms. Cannons, knives, swords, billy clubs, baseball bats, chinese throwing stars, grenades, TNT, missles, F-16's, tanks, secure satellite communications, subarmines, battleships, and thermonuclear warheads are all arms.

The only way to maintain a "free state" is to keep the power of the sword forever in the public trust.

Anything else will be abused.

 

[#shooter]

I don't understand how any gun owner, how any person who values the second amendment to be an individual right, would regard the complete repeal of Habeas Corpus for those that the President declares an "enemy combatant", which is a nebulous term which can easily be declared against "domestic terrorists" (read gun owners) as a good thing, and to regard this decision to be a bad thing.

You don't gain respect for the RKBA by spitting on all other constitutional rights and expect anyone to buy your argument that you're for civil liberties of gun owners. Without habeas corpus, your right to own a firearm matters not if the government can just disappear you into a van and then fly you off to a foreign country to be tortured and killed.

Bingo!
We complain to about the antis inability to acknowledge all the amendments and not just the 1st and 3rd etc. I think we should do the same. What the republicans did while in charge to privacy (FISA) and habeas corpus could be used against gun owners in the future by a hostile anti administration (looking at you Obama). We all hang together or we’ll all hang separately.
PS I wish all the Brady campain staffers good luck in looking for employment eleswhere.

 

[rdhood]

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.

Those darned political candidates turn up in the darndest places! Pretty soon, the Bradys will be banned from THR!

I predict they start going after ammo big time.

Bingo. Of course, it is a matter of time before we start getting cases to test ammo regulations. Ammunition infringements are defacto gun control infringements. Ammo registration IS gun registration.

 

[orienteeer]

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

only when used by a super dangerous PERSON, you dummies!

 

[ssr]

People look at Supreme Court decisions like a holy grail or something. If whatever the court decides on a controversial case depends upon the makeup of the court at the time, then their decisions are BS.

If they "decide" that the 2nd amendment describes an individual right rather than a collective one, IT WILL NOT CHANGE A THING in this fight. They will also say some mumbo jumbo about "reasonable" restrictions. It will begin a whole slew of new challenges with local sites and cities launching a new barrage of so-called "reasonable restrictions".

We will win the idealogical fight on "individual" vs "collective", but I think it will open the door to a whole new level of challenges as "reasonable restrictions". In the end, this decision will not help us in application and true practice of our rights.

The fight will go on and on. Especially after Obama wins and sweeping socialism spreads across our country in response to the so-called "free markets" (ie: banking manipulated markets) and subsequent financial collapse.

 

[#shooter]

Perhaps Brady will chainge thier name to "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Bullet Violence"

 

[Mall Ninja]

While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag...

Anyone ever hear of Sun Tsu?

We will win the idealogical fight on "individual" vs "collective", but I think it will open the door to a whole new level of challenges as "reasonable restrictions". In the end, this decision will not help us in application and true practice of our rights.

+1

 

[Kentak]

I think the anti's are recognizing what has been a matter of practical reality--that the general population and *most* politicians see RKBA as a right--but one that can be subjected to "reasonable" regulation.

Folks, it's always been that way and always will. That's just a practical reality. Assuming SCOTUS rules favorably, they will confirm an individual right, but will surely uphold the "reasonable" regulation concept. They are likely to rule (in my very humble lay opinion) that the DC restrictions went beyond reason and constituted a de facto denial of that individual right. What parameters they outline regarding what is or is not reasonable will be very interesting. I suspect they will allow a lot of local discretion based on local circumstances.

As always, RKBA will continue to be a locale by locale and law by law and election by election struggle.

Again, purely my conjecture. I wait anxiously, as do others, for the actual ruling.

K