Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

Status
Not open for further replies.

funnybone

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
103
:neener:

Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' Brady Campaign Head Says
by TEDDY DAVIS

June 12, 2008—

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.

ABC News' John Santucci contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1
 
Get ready for indirect measures to limit your RKBA, such as "bullet control." I first heard about "bullet control" in a comedy routine by Chris Rock joking that if bullets costs $5,000 each people would only use them on people who really deserved it and wouldn't hit innocent bystanders. This is good comedy but ridiculous policy, and therefore perfectly suited for the minds of gun control advocates.
 
"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."

Paul Helmke = Idiot

Every other right in the bill of rights is an INDIVIDUAL right... people don't think it is a right, they KNOW it is an individual right...


"Bullet control" is the easiest and fastest way to deny the use of firearms, look at the increase in cost for ammunition, plenty of people are being denied simply because they cannot afford a firearm and sufficient practice ammo...

Like NFA, they plan to make it a "Rich mans game"...
 
I agree, ammo control will be the next theater in this war. However, banning or severely restricting ammo is like banning or severely restricting ink for a printing.

"Sure, you can own a printing press and print whatever you want in books or newspapers. But you need federal approval to buy ink at $100,000 per barrel."
 
Get ready for indirect measures to limit your RKBA, such as "bullet control." I first heard about "bullet control" in a comedy routine by Chris Rock joking that if bullets costs $5,000 each people would only use them on people who really deserved it and wouldn't hit innocent bystanders. This is good comedy but ridiculous policy, and therefore perfectly suited for the minds of gun control advocates.

california is already working on bullet control. SB2026 will restrict people to 50 rounds per month
 
Why would RKBA not include ammo? What good are arms without it? I think a win for Heller would work in favor of both the guns and the ammo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top