The Bush Administration's Support for Gun Control

More evidence emerged this month that the gun debate is turning a corner in America.

Only days after signing the first gun control legislation in over a decade, the Bush Administration has now disavowed the most extreme outcomes implicit in the gun lobby's view of the Second Amendment.

In its brief in the D.C. v. Heller case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush Administration acknowledges that because of the "unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail" that "various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment."

The Brady Center welcomes this surprising development. It demonstrates the problem with the "private purpose" interpretation of the Second Amendment. This view might have sounded good politically to the Ashcroft Justice Department [pdf], but now the Bush Administration realizes that the lower-court decision could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of" common-sense gun control laws like the "federal machine gun ban," the restrictions on firearm possession by felons, and the licensing of gun dealers.

Rather than defend the long-standing view of virtually every Federal court - that the Second Amendment has an obvious militia purpose, and is no barrier to the adoption of gun control laws by legislative bodies responsible for providing public safety and for weighing competing views on the effectiveness of and need for such laws - the Bush Administration brief proposes a "heightened scrutiny" test when the gun control law "has no grounding in Framing-era practice."

This test would consider the "practical impact" on the individual ("including the nature and practical adequacy of the available alternatives") and the "strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction."

This case-by-case approach would permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion," according to the Bush Administration. Judges in different parts of the country could presumably reach different decisions on similar gun control restrictions based on the different law enforcement challenges in those communities.

Do we really want judges making those decisions rather than democratically-elected legislative bodies? Nine national police organizations have joined the Brady Center's brief [pdf] defending the pre-Heller state of Second Amendment law, which gave this power to communities.

Police and mayors and district attorneys (all of whom are on briefs supporting the District of Columbia) know that gun control laws that make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons help keep their communities safe.

The Second Amendment should not be a barrier to the adoption of sensible gun laws that help save lives. We're glad that the Bush Administration seems to agree.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[shedances]

I stand corrected on one part of my post ...

Important work in gun violence prevention ~ as discussed in length by the Brady Campaign and other fine, dedicated advocacy groups, IS being done, as it ought to; but, as we can all see by the continued & horrific problem of gun murders ... there is much more work that requires our attention & involvement.

The sound ideas are already put forth by Paul Helmke & Sarah Brady & others, folks ~ we just need to implement them, & not allow ourselves to be turned away by the guncrowd!

K

[DMeadows]

Folks, don't let the lone gun control advocate here try to fool you. The Brady Campaign, and nearly all gun control advocates, are for the complete disarming of private individuals.

Many of them won't dare say it, because they realize they must keep their unpopular agenda cloaked as much as possible. They've even gone so far as to change the names of their organizations. For instance, the Brady Campaign used to call itself, more bluntly and honestly, Handgun Control, Inc. But it's rather easy to see in what they do, what they support, what they don't speak out against, their grading criteria of state gun laws, etc.

[shedances]

Quick note:

When I write in my last post the "importance of gun violence," I think the better (& more correct) term would be "prevalence" rather than importance ...

It's getting late. Time to go.

K

[Thirdpower]

There is so much support on Capitol Hill for gun control that the leading candidates are fighting eachother over who gets the pro-gun vote and denying their past anti-gun stances:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/02/hillary_goes_after_obama_on_gu.html

[shedances]

After scrolling through a few of the NOT well-intentioned comments from those involved with firearms in our society ... what really shocks me, is how fearful & agitated these individuals in the guncrowd become (of losing their gunrights, mostly ... not in empathy for the crime victims) every time an incident of gun violence happens & is being discussed openly.

Gun control advocates react differently. We don't start beating people over the head with declarations of our rights & liberties. And we don't try to explain away ~ by manipulating stats, figures or studies as the guncrowd often does ~ the importance of gun violence in our society or how it can be more effectively remedied. Gun control advocates are (more often than not) shocked, concerned & often horrified when such incidents happen & are detailed. Shocked and sometimes angry; because organizations like the Brady Campaign know what to do to prevent more gun violence ~ and it's just not being done.

So, we are forced to see our daughters, sons, moms & dads, friends, neighbors, co-workers gunned down ... and the nervous guncrowd only jumps up and declares crassly that 'it's not our guns' fault.'

K

[shedances]

As for Dmeadows ... no more time to read or reply to any of your posts today. But, feel free to continue your intemperate criticisms of gun control in my absence.

K

[DMeadows]

Headline: "Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll

"LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality . . ."

Well this is no surprise to anyone who follows the Brits' embrace of gun banning and proposed banning of knives. Failing to grasp reality shows up in many different ways.

[mike101]

Folks, "gun-free zones" are only "gun-free" until somebody brings a gun. Through their efforts in support of gun-free zones, Kelli and the BC are trying to mandate that that "somebody" be a criminal.

[molonlabe]

Since today is the Superbowl, I'm in a betting kind of mood...

Anyone want a friendly wager on whether or not the Illinois shooter had a prior record/history of violent crime??

When are people like Paul Helmke and the rest going to acknowledge that regulating firearms has NO BEARING on violence?? Illinois has draconian gun control laws, yet things like this still happen.

Why?

Because we're not focusing our resources on making sure violent offenders never see the light of day.

[shedances]

I'll address a couple of questions this morning, before heading out ...

First, zen's flawed comparison does nothing to advance the cause of safety here ~ though he may be trying to imply that it does! People everywhere commit violent crime acts (I think most Americans agree with this disturbing reality) with all sorts of weapons ... why in God's name would anybody wish to make it so much easier for them to get the most deadly of these weapons (firearms)?

And to Msorgy's repeated comment on the mall being a "gun-free zone" ... Thank God for that minor inconvenience (ie., no-guns-allowed) that hopefully hinders similar, dangerous would-be armed robbers. And, on that note, I onder how much ~ or how little ~ of a background check was actually done on this individual gun buyer/shooter ... or where he purchased his gun (or how many he had)? Tinley Park, BTW, has no shortage of gun sellers.

I also wonder why the stores in this area were not better equipped with security guards ~ armed or otherwise? Just the presence of such highly visible, trained guards sometimes frightens off assailants.

Finally, I get pretty tired of hearing the guncrowd/gun lobby claim that we are all just gun-grabbers who jump on such incidents to try & take away everyone's firearms. This is both untrue & sick ... and a poor attempt at undermining important gun control efforts.

As a personal sidenote for the non-guncrowd reading: My own adoptive brother tried to commit armed robbery years ago, after going AWOL from the Marines. He was caught & imprisoned. He is now released, I understand. However, even after his AWOL ~ in which he should not have been able to purchase a firearm ~ he apparently had no trouble finding a bad dealer to sell him such weapons.

K

[shedances]

What a bleak place we would all live in ~ if the obnoxious guncrowd here were to have their way on dangerous firearms & gun laws!

IMHO, America can't afford to have more dangerous firearms in the wrong hands, that result in such gun-killings as Virginia Tech., the Omaha mall shooting, the Amish Penn. schoolhouse murders, etc. One such incident was certainly horrific enough!! But, unfortunately, there have been many ~ one right after the other, it seems ... & we all have a responsibility to prevent gun rampages/murders if we can.

So, as long as there are (seemingly) unconcerned people ~ like the guncrowd ~ who express very little regard for others' safety, wellbeing &/or rights when it comes to gun politics and esp. when it concerns saying "NO WAY" to the pushing of dangerous guns onto private citizens & others ... there will be people, like me, continuing to oppose them.

[mike101]

Kelli said "I personally & very strongly support the no-guns-allowed in public places except by law enforcement officers & security personnel that you are so angry about."

Wake up, Kelli. Gun free zones are only "gun free", if nobody brings a gun. How many more schools, malls, and churches have to get shot up before you people see that?

And how about that church in Colorado, Kelli? If there hadn't been an armed citizen in the congregation, how many more people would be dead right now? If someone at Virginia Tech had been armed (besides Cho) how many more people would be alive right now?

And why don't we ever have mass shootings at police stations or NRA meetings?

You say that gun free zones and these ridiculous gun laws don't create victims. Maybe not. But, they sure as hell make it easy for those bent on destroying many lives at one time to craete victims.

And how about that 313% per 100,000 inhabitants rise in crime tthat has taken place over the forty years of gun control? I haven't heard a peep out of you about that.

[shedances]

Is it just me ... or do others think the guncrowd is a bit agitated today? Makes me want to go home & play my Louis Armstrong tape with "What A Wonderful World" on it, just to cheer myself up! LOL

Time to go. Talk to you later, folks!

Kelli

[shedances]

Fellas. I understand my views will certainly not satisfy everyone here ~ nor is this my intention. But really. Do you all need to get up-in-arms (no pun intended) every single time a comment is made that doesn't support your pro-gun agendas/worldviews? Such reactions seem rather silly to me.

Also, if you fellas can answer with certainty all of the questions you pose to me & to other gun control advocates ... well, more power to ya. I certainly can't. I come here primarily to read the ideas (vision) of the Brady Campaign & its director, Paul Helmke ~ since they're the ones who are heavily involved in the heat of important gun control issues at the national level ... & their work impacts this country in a positive way! For this reason alone, they are assured my support.

Clear enough, fellas? Now, go enjoy a latte on this cold wintry day! LOL.

Kelli

[kaveman]

Mike101... you asked...


"OK. In what non-absurd way would you protect your family against an intruder?"

Don't you get it? Kelli doesn't think you SHOULD protect your family. When the local crack head kicks in your door and starts raping your children, YOU ARE SUPPOSSED TO STAND THERE AND WATCH, feeling proud that you are doing your part to make this a safer world.

In Kelli's world( the BC world), the only life worth protecting is that of the poor disenfranchised crack head from all you ultra-violent home owners who have the audacity to think for a moment that your life or the lives of your family are worth more.