After watching the oral arguments [pdf] yesterday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald v. City of Chicago gun case, I did find some things which should be positive for the cause of reducing gun violence.
On the one hand, it is true that Chicago's virtual ban on handguns appears to be in jeopardy. Yet that particular outcome has long seemed a near certainty, particularly since the five Justices who voted in the majority in the District of Columbia v. Heller case - which found DC's handgun ban unconstitutional -- still sit on the Court today.
More important, however, is the argument that the Brady Center made in the "friend of the court" brief [pdf] we filed in the McDonald case. The Brady Center argued that, regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the "incorporation" issue, the Justices should reaffirm the limitations on gun ownership they set out in the Heller decision and defer to the judgments of elected officials who enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership, short of a broad gun ban, to protect the public from gun violence.
In fact, based on the comments that I (and apparently several others) heard from the bench yesterday, the Justices seemed to express a consensus reinforcing the Court's strong language in Heller that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are "presumptively lawful."
As Justice Antonin Scalia -- author of the majority opinion in Heller - reminded gun advocate attorney Alan Gura, "we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States."
If the Court's opinion in McDonald bears out this impression, then law enforcement officials and our communities will be safer for it.
In practical terms, such a result would mean that most common sense restrictions on gun ownership would withstand Second Amendment scrutiny, including: Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales including at gun shows; restrictions on civilian access to military-style assault weapons; prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons; limits on bulk purchases of handguns to cut gun trafficking; and prohibitions on guns in bars, airports, public parks, college campuses and churches.
This broad deference to public safety policy decisions of state and local officials has been policy for the last 220 years of American history, and should continue to be so in the future.
In the two years since the Heller decision, courts throughout the country have rejected the arguments of gun criminals and the gun lobby that the Second Amendment enshrines their "any gun, anywhere, any time" agenda. Yesterday the Justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared to agree.
While everything obviously depends on what the Supreme Court actually writes in its final opinion, it appears that a majority of the Justices will say the Second Amendment allows Americans to have nearly all of the strong, common sense gun laws that they want and need to help protect their communities.
Like everyone else, I will be awaiting with great interest the Court's decision in June.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
"FAIRBANKS – The leader of the local Second Amendment Task Force has been barred from possessing a gun for at least the next two months.
Schaeffer Cox, 26, was arrested Wednesday night after Fairbanks police say he failed to notify an officer he was carrying a concealed pistol. Cox was in court Friday morning to plead not guilty to a misdemeanor count of fifth-degree weapons misconduct."
It gets better:
"Cox also recently had a court appearance on a felony assault charge, which stemmed from an accusation that he choked his wife during a trip to Anchorage. Three days later, Cox, who had no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor reckless endangerment and received a suspended sentence."
Obigatory National Firearms database
universal registration w/ renewals at least every three years
Demonstrated 'need' for a firearms.
Psychological tests.
'Competency' tests.
Ammo Serialization
Ammo limitations to 50 rnds/yr.
Ban on toy guns
Gun 'Buybacks'
But not so human life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401254.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Key grafs:
Two guns used in high-profile shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis, Tenn.
Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that both guns were once seized in criminal cases in Memphis. The officials described how the weapons made their separate ways from an evidence vault to gun dealers and to the shooters.
The use of guns that once were in police custody and were later involved in attacks on police officers highlights a little-known divide in gun policy in the United States: Many cities and states destroy guns gathered in criminal probes, but others sell or trade the weapons in order to get other guns or buy equipment such as bulletproof vests.
This why you have no creibility. Your own words destroy you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQIX8kW6118
Re: Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales --- agree.
Re: restrictions on civilian access to military-style assault weapons -- disagree. Assuming you are talking about the ugly gun ban, these statutes probably would not survive even under the "rational relationship" test. Bans upon weapons with actual functional distinctions, such as full auto would probably be ok.
Re: prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons--- may issue is probably doomed. Shall issue coupled with objective criteria which promotes an important governmental interest, such as skills tests, safety tests and a more intensive background test will probably survive. The issue will then resolve itself to whether the state can prevent a core right of the 2nd, that being the right to carry a weapon for self defense purposes. All of the cases cited in the Heller decision which authorized restrictions on concealed carry were based upon the fact that the state allowed open carry as an alternative.... noting that the state may regulate the manner in which the weapon may be carried so long as they do not forbid the right to carry. Thus, IMHO, the carrying of weapons shall be protected. The state may ban CCW only if they allow open carry, conversly, if they ban open carry, they must allow CCW.
More......
RE: limits on bulk purchases of handguns to cut gun trafficking--- would probably survive.
RE: "prohibitions on guns in bars, airports, public parks, college campuses and churches."
Not to the extent that you desire Paul. The ban would apply to specifically articulated "sensitive places", as stated in Heller. This would be a tough barrier to imposing "gun free zones" willy nilly as you might wish to do. Now to go back to your claim about CCW.... if a state or local government could outright ban the carrying of a gun anywhere, why did SCOTUS find it necessary to talk about limitations in specifically articulated "sensitive places"? Such a comment would necessarily be superfolous if a complete ban on carrying weapons anywhere was valid. Thus, it logically follows that carrying a weapon in public is protected, albeit not in specifically articulated "sensitive places",
Short answer.... you lose big time, Paul.
Banning licensed concealed carry, when carry license holders have a per capita violent crime rate as low as that of law enforcement, is not a reasonable regulation.
If you wish to get ANY traction, you are going to have to stop going after the law-abiding and nonviolent, and start focusing very narrowly on criminal gun misuse. Attempting to legislate 19th century stock shapes and magazine capacities, and demonizing carry licensure, do not help your cause in the slightest, and even if successful would have no impact on gun violence.
Sorry, but the first part of the second amendment doesn't cancel out the rest of it, no matter how much you want it too.
http://www.guncite.com/tpgswiss.html
After we impose "common sense" restrictions on freedom of the press on all but the print medium then I would entertain similar "common sense" restrictions on certain classes (real or imaginary) of firearms.
PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.
THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.
URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.
SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. "
I thought gun bans were "off the table," Paul?
After we win in McDonald, have fun with your agenda.
They're getting very desparate at this point and it shows.
You see where I'm going here, right?
The truth is that "presumptively lawful" simply means that instead of being overturned en masse, the laws are presumed to be lawful until challenged in court on a case by case basis.