Brady Campaign braces for loss in Heller vs. DC

brett636

Well-Known Member
This is for the benefit of BS who exclaimed that he was present for the heller case arguments and how he fully expects Mr. Heller to lose his case in his right to bear arms. Seems like one of the nations strongest gun control advocates are prepared to lose this battle in the Supreme Court.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1

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.
Relatedhttp://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=4470365


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.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
"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."


WOW!
What a powerful admission.

I wonder how much of that 75% is driven by the events of 9/11 and the potential of another attack at any time/ any place and the unspoken belief by the public that in the end there is not much any gov't can do to protect you so you must be in position to protect yourself?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
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.

Another WOW! If you understand the term federal enclave and organic State citizenship verses 14th amendment Federal Citizenship. It's also the reason there was orginally not a pledge of allegiance or other public actions to display or show loyality. Hint! hint!
:happy-very:

So will gun control groups now take up the mantle of State's Rights in their quest? God I pray they do!
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Sounds familiar to me but I was not thinking DC. :surprised:

LOL! Here's something to consider. DC although has what people think/consider a non federal local gov't, the area described in law as the District of Columbia is under complete federal jurisdiction.

The District of Columbia is located on the banks of the Potomac River and bordered by the states of Virginia to the southwest and Maryland to the northwest, northeast, and southeast. Article One of the United States Constitution provides for a federal district, distinct from the states, to serve as the permanent national capital. The United States Congress has supreme authority over Washington, D.C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_districts_and_territories#United_States

Washington DC was never intended to be a state but rather a federal enclave hence the term District so that no one state could have home field advantage. I'm also against DC Statehood if you can't tell.

Being an enclave and not a state, this Heller decision may not have the impact that gun control forces are looking for and now they are hedging their bets.


Getting to AV's point about the turmoil and crime in the area, what should we then deduce from the federal gov't ability to not be able to handle such a small area and then we are to think they can handle an area encompassing 50 states!

Think about it!
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Getting to AV's point about the turmoil and crime in the area, what should we then deduce from the federal gov't ability to not be able to handle such a small area and then we are to think they can handle an area encompassing 50 states!

Think about it!

Hmm we take away everyones guns and then have to conduct military style cordon and search operations just to make an attempt to reduce crime. Anyway looks like tomorrow is going to be the big day.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I can't believe nobody posted this.


"The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns. In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.” Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases."


“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
 

scratch

Least Best Moderator
Staff member
This is a great decision. It made up for the one yesterday when pervert child rapists were denied having the Death Sentence imposed on them.
 
Top