After Heller, The Gun Lobby's "Slippery Slope" Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead
Almost two years ago, I became president of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. A great deal has happened in the gun violence prevention movement since then, but one of the most important has been the debate in the Supreme Court over the meaning of the Second Amendment.
I was in the Supreme Court chambers during oral arguments in March, and I listened intently to the dialogue between the attorneys and Justices. I was back in the courtroom on Thursday when Justice Scalia read the majority decision and Justice Stevens read his dissent. Now that the Court has issued their opinions, there are a few points that should be discussed.
By way of introduction to new readers of the blog, I was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for 12 years. I was proud to be the 1998 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Indiana. I have also been for common-sense gun control throughout my life.
Over the years, I have seen the gun lobby effectively thwart efforts to pass many sensible gun laws by arguing that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. It is the classic "slippery slope" argument, and it has served the gun lobby well politically.
The "slippery slope," however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table Thursday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from "taking away" the guns of law-abiding Americans.
Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a "first step on the road to gun confiscation."
While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District's ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." When the dust settles, most Americans -- and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement -- will come to see that there are some positives in this decision.
Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can't hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.
In public and political terms, gun control advocates "lost" the battle over the Second Amendment a long time ago. According to a recent Washington Post poll, about 75% of the American people believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun for private purposes before the Heller decision was announced. Given that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg and the national Democratic Party platform all said basically the same thing prior to this ruling, a Supreme Court decision to the contrary would really have confused the general public.
What is fascinating, however, is that the same Washington Post poll shows almost 60% of Americans also approving the system of gun laws in the District of Columbia in effect before the Court's decision.
The American people support an "individual right" and they also support most "gun control" laws.
Unfortunately, this new court ruling will almost certainly embolden criminal defendants as well as the gun lobby to file new legal attacks on many existing gun laws. Prior to Heller, such challenges would have been dismissed out of hand under the Court's previous interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Nevertheless, with the help of the Brady Center's legal team, most of those new challenges can be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety. I am also confident we will prevail in advancing good new legislation to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons because the battle lines will be drawn not on abstract Constitutional history, but on common sense gun policy in the here-and-now.
Approximately 80 Americans continue to die from guns every 24 hours in this country.
Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries that occur each year in the United States. Our efforts need to focus on reducing these deaths and injuries.
We must keep up the fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities. The Brady Campaign will continue to lead the charge.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Since the Brady Campaign is all for reasonable gun control, I have some suggestions to help determine if they are reasonable:first, they have to be narrowly aimed at criminals not the law abiding; they have to avoid discriminating against the disadvantaged, disabled and poor; and the laws actually have to reduce crime (shall issue CCW does reduce crime so it is reasonable, DC style gun bans increase violent crime so they are unreasonable).
while you guys were hanging out here saying the same ol same ol, some real fun was being had at :
http://www
find out what folks think about guns at the Atlanta airport. find out what folks were saying about all of you gun lovers.
Mmimi--your fellow gun banners are using nothing in the way of reason, logic and facts in that blog, so why should I try to counter hysterical emotionalism
It's the usual insulting, hysterical BS with not one documented fact to back anything up.
Nothing to see here folks. Go on back home.
oh, I thought you might see the humor in some of the posts. These are just regular folks saying how they feel. They have probably never given money to or volunteered for a gvp group so I think it's stretching it for even you guys to call them "anti's"
Really shows how little influence the Brady Bunch have anymore, doesn't it?
Really though, thanks Mimi. It's amazing how fast the anti's get their *sses handed to them when presented with facts, evidence, and a lack of hysteria.
You do our side a good turn every time you post.
Thanks Mimi. If you didn't post the link, I may have missed gems such as this one:
"So terrified for your personal safety that you always have to pack heat? If I drove through the worst section of town to do business maybe but take a gun to the mall? Or the airport? How about daycare? You never know when a preschooler is gong to get a sugar rush and goes crazy with his teacher's Glock. If Dodge City mentality was what we needed to survive then why did Dodge City outlaw side arms? Maybe there is some deeper desire at work here.(Note to self: Must help society crumble so I have more legal opportunities to kill some one...)" -Hillrick
Not to mention the plethora of "It's Bush's fault!(tm) GOP bashers.
Nothing but a field of strawmen over there. Higher concentration of the same old rhetoric.
As usual, the anti's using the 1st amendment only to make the 2nd more credible. They are their own worst enemy. And our strongest ally.
you silly people, it's an opinion piece from a newspaper. that's why it says dear readers.
Perhaps if you cited your sources, these little misunderstandings wouldn'i happen.
Really. Where are the quotation marks?
Mmimi--why are you so desperate, we are not trying to force you to own a gun. we are not trying to arm elementary school children so your hystrionics will not work with us (or the readers in the middle)
Actually there is an open carry movement. The Brady Campaign opposes it as well. Shock. I know.
Meh, my state's not real keen on an open-carry movement. Florida's got its hands full elsewhere. One day, though...
While I would prefer to carry concealed (if nothing else so Kelli and Mmimi don't go into hysterics at the sight of someone carrying a gun),open carry would be fine as well. What is rich is that at one time, openly carrying a firearm was normal and legal (and concealed carry was an admission that you had something nefarious in mind) but to the gun control advocates the idea that a law abiding citizen would want to carry a gun is a sign of paranoia. I don't know about the rest of you, but choosing to have the tools available to protect yourself is not being paranoid, it is taking the Boy Scout motto (be prepared) to heart
I know what you're thinking, dear reader: What about the children? What about accidents?
My new law will be a kind of social Darwinism - survival of the fittest. Only those with the best aim — or the most destructive weapons — will survive. And, of course, the gun inevitably will grow in status, especially among impressionable youths. What better way is there to say "I love America" than getting your child the shiniest, prettiest gun money can buy?
Once the smoke clears and the gunfire has settled down momentarily, those left standing will agree that this is an essential law that must be passed. And if you don't, just start shooting.
Amazing!
Firearms have been a part of American heritage since the country began but only now is their such a fear of all the imaginary tragedies the "could" occur. Yes, there are the occasional gun accidents and gun misuses, but they are the exceptions (statistical outliers) rather than the rule. Society has managed to function just fine up to this point but I guess when the anti-gunners lack solid facts and logic to support their claims, you have to rely heavily on citing a few rare outliers as if their are more common than they really are and on the imaginary "what ifs" they can dream up.
So, dear readers, rather than forming your opinions based on conjecture and hyperbole, please research the facts and logic presented by both the pro-gun and anti-gun side.
Might be time to consider retirement from activism MMimi. You do our side a disservice every time you post. I have been hesitant to speak against you given the number of pro- v. anti-posters are about 8:1 here. But you are making a mockery of the issue, and in turn, lessen our effectiveness with each new post. It is embarrassing.
S
it was an opinion piece from a newspaper. guess you didn't understand what the author was trying say. don't be embarrassed, the gun lovers didn't either.
Ahhh.... looks like there is a division growing within the anti-gun crowd. Could it be that solitude is actually the integrity and intellectual honesty of one of his fellow gun-grabbers?
We're in rare form today, aren't we? Every Brady Campaign cliche in the book, all together for your convenience.
"I know what you're thinking, dear reader: What about the children? What about accidents?"
I can't believe I'm actually seeing " what about 'the children'"(tm). They really do say it. What about the fact that "the children"(tm) are just fine everywhere where concealed carry is allowed?
"Once the smoke clears and the gunfire has settled down momentarily"
Please. Is this a veiled Wild West reference? Where is all of this smoke and gunfire and death and destruction in places like Oregon, and Utah, and New Mexico, where people have been walking around armed for years?
"And, of course, the gun inevitably will grow in status, especially among impressionable youths."
Have you been to the movies in say......t
"What better way is there to say "I love America" than getting your child the shiniest, prettiest gun money can buy?"
No one is advocating allowing children to have guns. Do you think we could dial back the hysterics a little?
They have had 'shall issue' concealed handgun licenses in Washington State for even longer than Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico. There has been no crime wave in any of those states.
I would imagine 'shall issue' licensing is not very popular with the criminal element. Armed honest citizens do make the criminals' activities much more risky. Example: The goblin, who decided to rob the gun store. Attempting to rob a gun store is risky enough, in itself. However, this goblin ignored the sheriff's car in front, and also ignored the gun store being in Washington State. The robber walks into the gun store, fires a round into the ceiling and announces it is a robbery. The gunstore owner opens fire, the deputy opens fire, and the customers open fire on the robber. The robber earned a Darwin Award for his stupidity, and he also earned ride to the morgue.
"the gun inevitably will grow in status,especially among impressionable youths."
Five words.
Brady Campaign Spokesperson Sylvester Stallone
Excellent.
That's what I've been saying. It's common sense and for the children!
Adults need to be able to defend themselves and their families against criminals who would do them harm. What's more for the children than that?
Children need to be taught what to do if they find a gun without an adult around (STOP!
Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.). Seems to me that's for the children.
It's common sense and for the children, but the BC opposes both of those things. Seriously, how do they sleep at night knowing that they are actively campaigning against educating kids on what to do if they find a gun? Sheesh, aren't they supposed to be for the children?
Anyway, "for the children" is a matter of perspective. Ours has basic civil rights, reality and actual prevention strategies as part of the way forward. The BC stance is denial of reality and a preference for the criminals to have no armed resistance when they want to harm the children.
The Dewd
My new law wouldn't be limited simply to having weapons on your person, either: It also would apply to cars.
Road rage is more and more prevalent, and my legislation would put a quick end to that sort of behavior. I'm guessing drivers would be much less prone to cut off a car that has a machine gun mounted on its roof or a stinger missile aimed at oncoming traffic. We'd all be much friendlier on the road, and quick to use our turn signals, too.
And let's not forget about the terrorists. We all know they're lurking everywhere, just waiting to pounce at the right moment. Does that person walking down the street look different from you? He's probably a terrorist. Does he speak a different language, too? Yep, he's here to blow up a shopping mall. With the terror threat level constantly hovering at magenta, I believe those who wish to do America harm would be much less likely to attack if they knew the average citizen was carrying enough firepower to arm a Third World country. By openly displaying our bazookas or towing a Howitzer with our SUVs, the terrorists would have no choice but to surrender.
That's a lot of hyperbole. Or were you being serious?
Anyway, the terrorist comments are pretty amusing. You should look up the news feeds from Israel and see how it's working out for them.
Wait, it is working out for them, isn't it... Word...
The Supreme Court recently gave its interpretation of the Second Amendment by striking down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns.
Seems fair to me.
Gun control advocates across the country were subsequently infuriated. So I've come up with my own law: Let people carry whatever weapon they want, as long as it is openly displayed.
With this new law in effect, the argument over concealed weapons is ended. Do you want to carry a pistol (or two)? No problem - just carry your six-shooters in hip holsters, á là the Wild West. Are you tired of those trees full of pesky grackles squawking day and night? Just sling an AK-47 over your shoulder and fire away whenever the wildlife gets on your nerves. And forget about arguing: Now you can settle disagreements by dueling in the streets with swords or handguns — or even a combination of the two! The possibilities are limited only by your budget and how many weapons you can physically carry.
Keep right on conjecting MMimi. Let the desparation flow.
Don't let the fact that open carry by responsible citizens is now, and has long been, perfectly legal throughout the greater portion of our country...
Yesterday in this country millions and millions and millions of gun owning citizens harmed exactly no one, and yet you continue to intently cast the false focus of your ire toward us.
Remarkably, our nation's capitol, which has long been your very own gun-free utopia, somehow wasn't gun free.... was it?
And year after year after year DC reported violent crime rates several times those of midwestern cities, and states....
actually it was an opinion piece from a newspaper. i think he really bothered a lot of you with what he had to say. you have to keep explaining and explaining but truly the mainstream feels differently than you. that's why you're here, no one else wants to hear what you have to say. have a safe 4th.
Heh, sorry, law wouldn't fly. Previous Supreme Court cases made pretty clear the concealed v. open-carry argument is an issue for states and not the federal government.
As you were.
The "Gun Lobby":
I always find this moniker the most amusing of all of the language of the politics of firearms. It's as if there are no real people who wish to keep and bear arms, only this nebulous, evil throng of cigar-smoking, gun-toting, politician-bribing maniacs that shape policy. This disregards the fact that there are literally millions of members of the NRA, and I would guess that the NRA alone has more members than the VPC, BC and all other anti-gun groups combined. The "gun lobby" is actually a group of people who represent an even larger group of people and have logic, the Constitution and basic human rights on their side who protect civil rights and promote gun safety and training. The "gun control lobby" has emotion, and actually opposes training. The "gun lobby" is actually more of a reflection of the body of the people than the House of Representatives, as those voting districts are designed to keep the status quo, whereas the NRA is unbound by location and voting barriers.
The "gun lobby" is not like the "oil lobby" which represents a small minority of people. The "gun lobby" actually has vast numbers of people for whom it speaks, not just a few.
Does anyone have any numbers for membership in the VPC / BC vs. the NRA? This could shed some light on the "gun lobby".
The Dewd
The VPC has Zero members. They are a paid lobby group for the Joyce Foundation. The BC/MMM combo claims about 50K members and about 150K "internet grassroots activists" (most of which are us receiving their E-mail alerts), the AHSA has maybe 1000.
The NRA has about 3.5 million members give or take. SAF has about 200K plus, GOA about 30K, SCCC around 30K.
That's a riot! So...3.5 million in just the NRA to 200K in the BC / MMM (doesn't that stand for Million Mom March? I think they're about 800K short!). Wow, that "gun lobby" sure is powerful..
"Gun lobby" indeed.
The Dewd
"Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries that occur each year in the United States. Our efforts need to focus on reducing these deaths and injuries." Paul Helmke
I beg to differ. With 17,000 "gun deaths"/ yr comprising the majority of that statistic, it would make sense to me to dedicate a good portion of those "anti-violence" funds toward social programs aimed at the social problem which leads to suicide. Japan + higher suicides than the US + gun bans = clear evidence that implements are not problem.
It would make sense to me to pursue remedies for the complex social deficiencies plaguing the inner city (is it a coincidince that the major "players" in the anti-gun movement represent major metropolitan cities like DC, Philly, NYC, etc...), where a severely disproportionate ratio of violente crime is occurring.
It would make sense to me to acknowledge the decades of failed gun control laws and shift focus from implement control to criminal control.
Pursuing bans on lawfully owned weapons, the ability to lawfully carry a concealed weapon for personal protection, demonizing and banning popular semi-auto rifles (opps, sorry, I think the chic word for the day is "regulating" assault rifles) and other legislation which both does not work, and only effects law-abiding citizens, does not make sense to me.
THAT is what is truly "senseless" about violence crime.
"At least three times, Helmke said the BC was not a gun banning organization, they were not about banning guns, etc. . . . How can the BC and Paul Helmke keep lying to everyone with a straight face, the way they do?"
--vespasian1
Theories on what motivates this discrepancy between what they say and what they do, from most likely to least likely:
1)The fat paycheck.
2)Some form of psychosis, in which you deny the effects of your acts.
3)No significant mental defects, they've just been drinking their kool-aid for long enough and they really are true believers.
"Just as we suspected, the National Rifle Association has filed its first lawsuit using the Supreme Court"s new interpretation of the Second Amendment to attack gun laws." Sarah Brady
Since the Supreme Court had never ruled on the individual right to own firearms, this cannot be called a "new interpretation". It's the ONLY interpretation.
Before someone comes along and brings up Miller, don't bother. Miller was not about the 'individual right'. It was about whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was a suitable militia weapon. And after all, we're all in the militia.
What I particularly like about the Supremes' "new interpretation" is that it's not an interpretation at all. The Supreme Court merely upheld the Second Amendment as written.
Bravo.
I think it is time to get in on this and file a lawsuit to do away with the tax stamp for silencers. It is burdensome and discriminatory for poor people.
Long Live the Second Amendment
May we return to a nation of riflemen and women.
happy 4th
You know what's most amusing about the title? Folks really wouldn't mind reasonable regulations. It's the restrictions, and the bastardization of the word "reasonable", that pisses folks (like gun owners and civil rights activists) off.
Now stop pounding "gun lobby". It wasn't the "gun lobby" that had anything to do with this case; theirs were a few of many briefs submitted to the court. It was a group of private citizens with a wealthy benefactor who pushed this case, not your favorite bad guys at the NRA.
"Click Here to Donate Now"(tm) Part 2
We have our work cut out for us, but I know we can beat the gun lobby in court. All nine Justices agreed that most gun laws should be found constitutional — like laws banning guns in schools, laws that regulate the sales of guns, and bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
We have common sense on our side. And, with the Brady Center’s legal expertise and years of experience, we can and will help defend gun laws that protect you, your family and your community.
Thank you for your support today.
Sincerely,
Sarah Brady, Chair
P.S. The gun lobby won’t stop with San Francisco and Chicago. According to one gun lobby spokesperson, the next targets could be New York and Detroit. Please support the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund today."
This is the second plea for money since the decision. The first was the same day.
The BC clearly does not respect the decision of the Supreme Court, and apparently intends to ignore it. What makes these people think Chicago or San Francisco can defy the Supreme Court? These are two more gun bans that the BC is supporting, while telling us they do not support gun bans.
They have no respect for the will of the people, either. They don't care what anyone says, they are out to ban as many guns from as many people as they can.
"We have common sense on our side. And, with the Brady Center"s legal expertise and years of experience, we can and will help defend gun laws that protect you, your family and your community.
---
Wow, this statement made me laugh so hard I messed myself (no not really). So, the Brady "legal expertise" is to interpret a Supreme Court ruling that gun bans are unconstitutional as legal approval to enact various gun bans.
The very day that SCOTUS handed down their Heller decision, I saw LaPierre and Paul on 'Hardball'. At least three times, Helmke said the BC was not a gun banning organization, they were not about banning guns, etc.
Well, they are still supporting the DC ban (done deal Paul- get over it), and are already supporting every other ban they can get their hands on, like Chicago and San Francisco.
How can the BC and Paul Helmke keep lying to everyone with a straight face, the way they do? It's mind boggling.
Shedances, MMimi, any comment on what Helmke means when he says they don't support gun bans, and then in the next breath he supports two more?
I'm confused (not really).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
