Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

[RugerNiner]

Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' Brady Campaign Head Says

by TEDDY DAVIS

June 12, 2008—

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.

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.
But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

ABC News' John Santucci contributed to this report.



Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

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

[ThoughtCriminal]

Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss.

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.

Are they serious?

[pex]

Are they serious?

This looks like an April Fools joke a few months too late...

Do they know something we don't?

[LittleRedToyota]

Are they serious?

yes, that is one quite possible outcome.

the 2nd amendment has never been "incorporated" the way other amendments have.

originally, the constitution, including the bill of rights, applied only to the federal government. however, many of the rights in the bill of rights have been "incorporated" via the 14th amendment and this makes them apply to states. the 2nd has never been incorporated, though.

for more on "incorporation":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights)

since washington DC is not in a state, it is quite possible that the issue of incorporation will not be addressed in the supreme court's decision. if not, the question of whether or not the 2nd applies to states will be left up in the air and it will not be clear that gun bans in other cities are unconstitutional (according to the supreme court)...there will have to be a follow-up case challenging a ban in a different city to resolve it.

of course, we all hope the supreme court decides to incorporate the 2nd in this case, but i don't know if that is realistic since DC is not part of a state.

also, realize that the supreme court may very well (probably will) rule that the 2nd does protect an individual right, but that right may be "reasonably" restricted. they will prolly rule that DC's ban is not reasonable, but will also likely leave the exact definition of what is "reasonable" open.

while i do think the supreme court is going to rule that the 2nd protects an individual right which is a huge step forward, i don't think this case is going to have much practical effect outside of DC until some follow-up cases happen.

just my non-lawyer 2 cents.

[PocketProtector]

Based on the "Decision" the other day, I wouldn't rule ANYTHING out.

[TaePo]

Anyone notice that all of their self defense statements end in "in the home"?

This is the new fight, in the home, not "on the streets".

[Shawn.L]

Anyone notice that all of their self defense statements end in "in the home"?

This is the new fight, in the home, not "on the streets".

the brady camp must hate the homeless !
what, you have to be a landowner to have rights !

[Atomic Dog]

the brady camp must hate the homeless !
what, you have to be a landowner to have rights !

Full circle? Next minority votes will be counted twice to make it "fair".....

[Pector55]

yes, that is one quite possible outcome.

the 2nd amendment has never been "incorporated" the way other amendments have.

That's my biggest fear. I have even read arguments on this aspect on legal sites.

For instance:

"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."

Reference: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

[Agent Smith]

"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."

I knew that was coming - especially about the "assault weapons".

My major fear, is that if the court rules that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, but is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Brady Bunch will still be pushing just as hard for AWB's, because they would see that as a reasonable restriction.

I hope we get a ruling that states the Second Amendment shall not be infringed just like it's written, but if they rule that it is subject to reasonable restrictions, I sure hope they specify what those restrictions are, or I don't see much changing.