The Bradys, the International Chiefs of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police want to maintain the status quo and their control over “we the people”. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, these people will be forever looking for loopholes so that they may maintain control. The Bradys, The ICoP, and the FOoP do not speak for “We the People”. They do not speak for American police chiefs nor for the rank and file police officers. They speak for the money, and for control.

As I expected!

Another follower of the religion of gun control, and another bigoted troll!

Thanks for playing, asshole!

I hope that the future will prove mikeb is wrong and past history seems to indicate that.

Incorpoartion is a given but under what standard of scrutiny is major issue. Heller gave indication that it would be the same standard as 1st amendment and that is not a reasonable standard.

Common law and statutory law often uses the reasonable standard. But constitutional law goes further.

Brady is correct in their fear that many state and local laws will fall under strict scrutiny or that reasonableness is insufficient to restrict a fundamental right.

I for one am looking forward to that day that many local and state laws fall and greater gun rights will be available in the states and towns.

See, Mike, … The question isn’t whether respecting a fundamental Constitutional right improves crime rates. The question is whether the restriction of that right is so overwhelmingly beneficial that it justifies eroding our freedom and telling your neighbors how to live.

Gun control is almost always premised or claimed to be premised upon policy arguments (whether they are demonstrable or not) that to advance the important public policy of crime control, guns must be banned, licensed, rationed, neutered, etc. ad infinitum. Now that the “collective rights interpretation” as a means to speed regulation has been quashed, we shall still see these policy arguments up at the forefront.

Yet I have long felt that the true question of the second amendment boundaries is not and cannot be premised upon policy or majority rule via legislatures. It’s a right, and it’s law. IF we decide that it truly makes good public policy to ban guns, then we ALSO must decide to repeal the second amendment.

The folks at Buckeye Firearms Foundation put it pretty well in their brief on behalf of McDonald:

“Chicago advances a policy argument against incorporation that is demonstrably false; namely, Chicago’s gun ban must survive in order to combat violent crime. As examined above, the gun ban is not accomplishing this purported goal. However, even if
the ban was having a demonstrable impact, citizens cannot be forced to sacrifice their enumerated constitutional liberties upon the altar of ‘crime control.’ This court should redirect governments like Chicago towards “criminal control” and away from gun owner
discrimination.”

“This Court has recognized that the exercise of constitutional rights must be balanced against legitimate public interests, chief
among which is public safety. In light of that precedent, and the unparalleled societal risks associated with firearms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not prevent citizens, through their elected representatives, from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and
communities from gun violence.”

Or in other words, the perspective of those in power in Illinois and other states (from their petition for cert brief in Heller) … they want to keep their power:

“Consequently, the amici States have a strong interest in the
review of the court of appeals’ decision, the rejection of its
reasoning, and the reaffirmance by this Court of the States’
traditional authority to protect public safety through the exercise
of the police power to restrict access to certain types of firearms.”

The serious part is that the question of whether more guns really results in less gun violence will become clearer.

The question isn’t whether respecting a fundamental Constitutional right improves crime rates. The question is whether the restriction of that right is so overwhelmingly beneficial that it justifies eroding our freedom and telling your neighbors how to live.

It isn’t necessary for crime rates to drop like a stone after gun law liberalization: if crime rates don’t _increase_, that shows that the laws weren’t justified.

Your desire to put the burden of proof on our shoulders doesn’t make _sense_: basically, if NY, NJ, Illinois, and the other handful of anti-gun enclaves are forced to join the 21st century and respect their citizens’ right to bear arms just like the rest of the country, and it doesn’t lead to more violent crime and death, then what earthly reason can you have for trying to intrude on your neighbors’ choices in this matter?

Not that you’ll answer, but will you have to see for you to be convinced, Mike?

If you’re reasonable you should have an answer. if you’re not, you won’t, and likely will just ignore this question.

The serious part is that the question of whether more guns really results in less gun violence will become clearer. So far I don’t find it convincing, but if it’s as sure as you guys say and the gun-rights crowd keeps winning in the courts, even I will eventually be convinced.”

Well, for better or worse, there are those who believe the “panic” to be justified. But I suppose there always be those types. They emerged as each state debated defensive carry provisions. After the Heller ruling itself, there were those making that claim.

In my opinion, the primary thing that would decrease gun violence (or violence of most kinds) would be that we, as a society, quit coddling and tolerating the violently criminal among us. We make lots of excuses. Like Hassan … I have heard or read multiple lines of suggestion at the things that “caused” his spree of violence. Usually, those things include all but his decisions, and solutions include all but making him personally responsible … and right away. This might sound harsh, but violent criminals are harsh … at some level, we just need to elimintate violent offenders from our society. It astounds me that we can and do tolerate mass shooters, gang drive-bys that kill innocents, and even armed robberies, forcible rapists, etc. In our society the consequences of those actions (post arrest) are just too lax. To echo the words of one person … I don’t like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

After the Supreme Court rules and there’s a domino effect throughout the country overturning many other laws, the entire land mass of North America will turn into a bloody mess. There’ll be blood in the streets, neighbor will shoot neighbor over the slightest provocation, murders and suicides will double and double again.

Then I’ll be able to say I told you so.

This is all a silly attempt at humor, in case any of you have a sense of humor any more.

The serious part is that the question of whether more guns really results in less gun violence will become clearer. So far I don’t find it convincing, but if it’s as sure as you guys say and the gun-rights crowd keeps winning in the courts, even I will eventually be convinced.

1) It’s clear that they presume the 2A will be incorporated against the states.

2) It’s pretty clear that they presume it will thus be ruled to protect a fundamental right.

3) Aside from the introductory “guns are really bad” information, the crux of their position and hope is as follows (from the concluding paragraph of the argument):

“The state and federal governments’ interests in
stability and in the preservation of their reasonable
firearms regulations are sufficiently weighty to make it
appropriate for the Court to articulate a deferential
standard of review in this case. Clarification of the
standard of review is particularly crucial if this Court’s
analysis of the question on which it granted certiorari
leads it to describe the Second Amendment right as
“fundamental.” Otherwise, the states and the federal
government will surely be subjected to a generation of
litigation over their firearms laws, with many measures
perhaps being invalidated before this Court articulates
the proper standard of review. Accordingly, amici
submit that the Court should adopt a “reasonable regulation”
standard of review in this case.”

That’s it. They argue that existing firearms restrictions are reasonable, and they don’t want any of them overturned. Not only is that position part of their “mission” … the court challenges to various laws post-Heller then will or may obligate them to assist in defense. In other words … playing defense is costly.

As an aside … and I’m not a lawyer … what exactly is a “reasonable regulation” standard of review? It has long been my understanding that in US constitutional law, the three standards of review are 1) rational basis, 2) intermediate, and 3) strict.

If the “reasonable regulation” standard is comparable to any, which is it?

I am taking their word for that … and what is unclear to me if that is commonplace among other so-called “fundamental” rights, or not.

The “shouting ‘fire’” analogy is misplaced (as usual). You’re not allowed to shout “fire” in a theater, or fire a gun, unless doing so is vital to saving lives (or is a harmless part of the show as Penn & Teller are fond of demonstrating). Pro-2ndA advocates do not seek legality to shoot in a theater, they simply want the ability to (shall we say) shout “fire” if there really is one.

1stA restrictions per noise ordinances are akin to “no discharge within city limits” laws, both reasonable because the risks are deemed too high. Note that these are restrictions on USE, not _possession_.

Such analogies, good or bad, derail the issue when raised. The issue at hand is POSSESSION – the mere right to have an inanimate tool at hand should need for legitimate use arise. We seek not to yell or shoot in a theater, we want to just have a suitable tool at hand for legitimate use (should there be a fire, or a mugging en route to the parking lot).

The “you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theatre” argument comes to mind. It seems to me that restrictions on firing guns in crowded theatre (when your life is not threatened) is an entirely reasonable and analogous restriction on the 2A … as would be a restriction on the firing of guns in a park campground, after say 10pm or so.

This is perfectly reasonable, but the Bradies err in assuming that ownership and carrying of firearms are analogous to “acting” in the First Amendment example.

The purpose of attempting to regulate belief is to put prior restraint on undesireable behavior. Affirming an absolute right to freedom of belief is to affirm that we can’t punish or restrict a person for being _capable_ of taking unacceptable actions; law can only touch those actions themselves.

In the Second Amendment context, the regulation of merchants, purchasers, and the carrying of arms is far more analogous to the restraint of belief than the restraint of action. It attempts to head off the action by constraining the capability, in a way the Court seems to say is unacceptable.

If this is the example the Bradies really want to use, they’re actually making the case for absolutely no restrictions on firearms purchase and posession, with regulation acceptable only over acts committed with those firearms–a much _more_ pro-gun position than Heller took.

Just wait until a case after incorporation (yes, McDonald will succeed, its just a question of due process or P&I) challenging US v Miller. That would be the proper time for you to panic. Not much will change in regards to crime after McDonald, which I presume is why you oppose gun rights.

“to condition the (ownership of firearms) for the (purpose of self-defense held up under Heller) upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is (allowable for self-defense), is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.

Gura isn’t even against licensing (for now) from what I have read. The Bradys seem to have beaten him to the argument.

Is that to say that the Bradys suggest the reason for the regulations they propose is so the Courts can “establish how we are to protect this important fundamental and enumerated right?.”

I thought the reason they propose certain, as they call it, “common sense gun laws,” which they say are allowed in Scalia’s opinion in Heller, is to diminish gun violence without trampling gun rights.

In other words, here’s how your statement could read:

“the Brady claim that regulations “such as licensing for gun dealers and owners” are among the types that should be upheld by the Courts in their quest to address the problem of gun violence.”

We might when that question is at hand, but for now it isn’t. If the Court had taken Maloney, I’d suspect you’d see more of that, but they didn’t.