Snowflakes in Hell


Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania

Agenda Totally In Tact

author Posted by:Sebastian on date Jun 27th, 2008 | filed Filed under: Anti-Gun Folks

Says Paul Helmke:

The “slippery slope,” however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table yesterday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from “taking away” the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a “first step on the road to gun confiscation.”

Yeah, except the slippery slope argument was only ancillary.   I’m still going to argue that you’re wrong, and that the laws are unconstitutional.  This changes nothing for us, but it does change a lot for them.  Now all these proposals have to answer to a very high level of scrutiny, because, you see, they infringe on fundamental constitutional rights.  Time will reveal this.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Not Bully on Gun Rights
  2. Free(r) Market Health Care is Slavery
  3. Declining Gun Culture

tag6 Responses to “Agenda Totally In Tact”

  1. mike w. Said,
    June 27th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    It’ll certainly change things in the 9th circuit since they can no longer just say “I’m sorry, but the 2A is a collective right of state militias, so you can’t challenge law X at all.”

  2. Kurt "45superman" Hofmann Said,
    June 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Besides, the slippery slope argument is not gone–between microstamping (both guns and ammunition), “smart guns,” licensing, registration, etc., they can regulate the right (how’s that for an oxymoron) out of existence.

  3. jones Said,
    June 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am

    District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
    arbitrary and capricious manner.” (Heller v. DC p 59)

    That to me means “needs proof a law works with minimal intrusion.”

    Good luck getting your junk past Scalia, Paul.

    PS- See how they want to limit “Assault” weapons. What happened to ban, banners?

  4. the pistolero Said,
    June 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am

    I thought “limit” more or less does mean “ban” to the Bradys. Which, if I am reading Heller correctly, is proscribed by the 2A…

  5. BC Said,
    June 29th, 2008 at 6:50 am

    I agree with Kurt — outright bans were already politically impractical if not legally impermissible outside of most urban centers. The gun grabbers have therefore been resorting to a “death by a thousand cuts” strategy for years. If the cumulative effect of gun control regulations is to make handgun ownership so onerous that nobody bothers, then that’s a de facto ban if not a de jure one.

    And that’s what we need to be concerned with.

  6. anon Said,
    June 30th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Actually, what Heller changes is that THEY are on the slippery slope now…

    And you can tell they don’t much like it…