Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District's ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this 'slippery slope' argument is gone.
The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue 'any gun, any time for anyone,' which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.
The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.
After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
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
Kelli--what PROOF do you have that SCOTUS made a mistake when it decided that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, or is it all personal private insight
There is an inconsistency in the anti-gun message that has been highlighted here by a number of comments.
It seems we are told on a daily basis that guns are dangerous weapons used so frequently to take life that they need to be banned (in at the very least, heavily regulated).
However, when we point out that guns are a great method of self-defense, anti-gunners say the chances of being victimized (period, let alone by someone with a gun) is to rare to justify relying on a firearm for self-defense.
So which is it, is gun-use to victimize someone too infrequent to justify the need for relying on a gun for self-defense and thus too infrequent to support a claim guns are a common threat threat that must be banned?
Or, are guns used so often to victimize members of society that members of society are justified in relying on firearms as a needed means of self defense?
This is a very good point about a glaring contradiction in anti-gun rhetoric.
Well, there are some folks posting here today who think that home invasions never happen. Here are three women in Philly's 39th Precinct who say different.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6232229
Three seperate invasions, three nights in a row.
Nothing about comets landing on their houses, though.
The simple fact is, there are great number of infrequent rare things that a person can experience in life. It is highly probably that at least some of these rare things will happen. Most people, often without even being consciously aware of it, safeguard themselves against whichever rare event(s) they may experience.
People don't buckle up and have auto insurance because they expect to be hit by a drunk driver. People don't put gates around their pools because they expect neighborhood kids to drown in their pool. People don't have health insurance because they expect to become ill. People don't have fire extinguishers because they expect to have a kitchen fire. People don't lock their medicine e cabinets because they expect their children to take unknown medicine. People don't put safety shields over their electrical outlets because they expect a child to stick something in the outlet. People have life jackets in their boats because they expect the boat to sink or to fall overboard.
I could go on and on.
Paul Backtracks on CCW:
Right to carry states are 48 of the 50 states right now¦If there are clear restrictions on people [felons and the mentally ill] and to make sure that they know what they"re doing with the gun, that they pass the background checks, that the local police have signed off on it, that"s something that doesn"t cause that many problems...
http://www.american-manifesto.com/post/The-Brady-Campaigns-Surprise-Admission.aspx
The Brady "victory" come to light.
This is a good watch folks.
Now Helmke is saying the Brady Campaign has never endoresed gun bans.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25399255#25399255
HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
God my head hurts.
This is why the BC loses so much traction. They honestly think that the American people are so ignorant as not to see through their deception and lies.
I mean really, Paul was on a news program voicing disagreement with the overturning of a gun ban while at the same time saying the BC doesn't endorse gun bans. Then about 10 minutes later said they don't push for bans. Does he really think that most moderate Americans are idiots?
Paul also said, a few minutes before denying that the BC supports gun bans, that he believes a legally armed person with a concealed carry permit isn't really a problem.
Paul's exact words in response to Chris Mathews asking Paul if concealed carry is reasonable:
"Right to carry states are in 48 of the 50 states right now. That's a battle that has been talked about. If there are clear restrictions on people and to make sure they know what they are doing when they get the gun, that they've passed the background check, that the local police have signed off on it, that is something that doesn't cause that many problems."
So Paul, does this mean that you will now support concealed carry on college campuses by legally licensed law abiding citizens?
Wilmette IL suspends handgun ban.
http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.html
n a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.
"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."
I don't consider the outright ban of all guns to be a sensible gun law.
It would be a "no-gun" law, though, wouldn't it? And, therefore, not eligible to be considered whether it is a sensible gun law or not.
Looks like the editing has begun on the brady site...
go here and then click on the 2nd Amendment.....page not found.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/
Despite claims from a few progun rights advocates ... this is NOT a closed issue (and likely, never will be). Whatever the majority writes is always subject to intense debate & criticism (due to our democratic principles). Moreover, it seems that the only thing the Supreme Court majority said, which was arguably 'consistent' with the original provisions of the U.S. Constitution, had to do with being secure in one's home. Beyond that, it is inconsistent and incorrect ~ as pointed out by dissenting voices like Justice Stevens. To its credit, the Brady Campaign saw this coming. I was too optimistic that the Court would more appropriately weigh in the militia & also gun violence concerns. But knowing Scalia, Roberts & others, I should have been more cynical. I feel for Mayor Fenty and all of the District of Columbia's residents ... they will likely have to cope with more handgun-related violence as a result of this poor ruling.
K
"Moreover, it seems that the only thing the Supreme Court majority said, which was arguably 'consistent' with the original provisions of the U.S. Constitution, had to do with being secure in one's home."
"Beyond that, it is inconsistent and incorrect ~"
I see you are still totally ignoring all of those pro gun quotes from the founders that we wasted on you. In what way is it incorrect?
Normally, I would be tempted to go back, and drag them all up here again. But you know what? I don't have to. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not ignore them.
"they will likely have to cope with more handgun-related violence as a result of this poor ruling."
Since the criminals are already armed to the teeth, as you well know, I don't think that statement even approaches reasonable.
As Shelly Parker would tell you, the only people in DC without guns are law abiding citizens. The criminals, and Josh Sugarmann don't seem to have a problem getting guns. And if Fenty thinks his semi-auto ban is going to last much longer, he's out of his mind.
Now on to Cook County, Ill...................................and Chicago!
So K, you support the dissenters view on the child rape case then?
Howabout the fact that they (the dissenters) had numerous factual errors in their dissent? Any comments on that?
Come on Thirdpower, you say factual errors, Kelli says "personal insight." That's just semantics.
Yesterday was a good day; historic too. I'm so happy I'm alive to see it, I honestly didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.
There is no more 'confusion' about the 2nd being an individual right!! That's...staggering!
I already wrote the ACLU and asked if they'd finally reconsider their stance on the 2nd. I was surprised (but happy) to see a lot of folks on some of my firearms forums had done the same. I was a member for years, but decided to join the NRA instead as I couldn't stomach their stance on the 2nd.
And of course I get the Brady Center email, begging for money - but I did get a huge laugh out of the subject line - "Supreme Court affirms no "Any gun, for anyone, at time!" I mean, talk about incredible spin! As if that was the question before the court....oh you cards...
And it's just the begining - Hey Chicago - put on something nice, freedom is coming to town!
I'd point out Fat Tony's ruling yesterday said exactly zero about the 2A being necessary to prevent tyranny.
So that meme is dead.
And let's face it, the gunloons have never opposed tyranny. Never. When Geo Bush decided it was just peachy to wiretap your phones, suspend habeas corpus, hold US citizens without charges indefinitely, and engage in torture--did we see the gunloons rise up?
Nope.
Zero comment, huh???
You might want to review page #36 where it is noted:
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia."
Sorry Jade, but your arguement won't convince people who have actually read the Court's ruling.
Try again.
How about Page 24 and 25:
"ï"¿There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be "necessary to the security of a free state." See 3 Story§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders largestanding armies unnecessary"an argument that Alexan-der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."
Or how about Page 41:
[Scalia talking about an 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling]
"The court then adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding together to oppose tyranny."
"I'd point out Fat Tony's ruling yesterday said exactly zero about the 2A being necessary to prevent tyranny."
Jade must be reading a different ruling than everybody else:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court"s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens" militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens" militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22"28.
Wow, it seems that Jadegold is all concerned about constitutional rights now.
How funny.
I think you are right, the 4 anti-gun liberal justices in the Heller case that sided with DC are 4 out of the 5 justices that decided to given terrorists captured on the battlefield the same Constitutional rights that we law abiding American citizens have.
"And let's face it, the gunloons have never opposed tyranny. Never. When Geo Bush decided it was just peachy to wiretap your phones, suspend habeas corpus, hold US citizens without charges indefinitely, and engage in torture--did we see the gunloons rise up?"
Wow. A straw-man, a red herring, and an ad-hominem all rolled into one. And none of it has a thing to do with gun control. I'm impressed.
"I'd point out Fat Tony's ruling yesterday said exactly zero about the 2A being necessary to prevent tyranny.
So that meme is dead."
No. The dead meme is the one about 2A being a collective right of the militia.
But it does say that I can use a firearm in self defense
I would like to do 2 things.
1. Start a fund to buy every man, woman and child in DC a handgun.
2. Begin a drive to enact a law making it permissible to carry concealed guns in Federal Courts including the Supreme court.
Who's with me?
Makes complete sense to me.
What is good for the goose......
No gun-rights person would be with you.
Men and women with certain criminal or mental histories, and definitely children, do not have a right to possess a handgun. A law simply making it permissible to carry concealed into a court isn't as sensible and safe as the current CCW laws in place in the 48 states. Look to those laws as models for what you want to achieve, not just your simplistic idea.
We need sensible licensing, but must remember it's not a panacea.
We license automobile drivers and still get 40,000+ dead and millions injured per year. Ultimately you cannot guarantee the safety of every person in America if you allow individuals to own powerful instruments: cars, guns, planes, chainsaws, brush cutters, softball bats ....
Personally I want handgun licensing to be tougher than automotive licensing, with better proficiency testing and more ongoing verification of skills. It would be great if we got there. But let's not fool ourselves that nobody will ever die from an accident or even ill intent if we have better licensing. The only way to stop deaths caused by human carelessness, stupidity, and ignorance is to lock yourself in a soft, padded room and never leave the house.
Not really interested in that world.
If anti gun groups and politicians did not want to use every new gun law as a stepping stone for total gun bans you might get your wish.
As an NRA member and instructor I would like to see everyone trained. I do not trust those that have pushed for total gun control to set reasonable proficiency requirements. Can you imagine the requirements the DC Mayor and City Councile might set?
I have a suspicion that the instructors for SWAT, SEALS, and Special Forces would fail that exam (sub 2 hour marathon, a legal exam more dificult than the Bar exam, 100 round all Xring at a 1000 yards using a free pistol at 1000 yards using 22shorts) for starters
Posted June 26, 2008 | 06:52 PM (EST)