Just So You Know: Gun Rights & The Supremes

My Way News - Gun rights is biggest issue for court to decide

By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - One momentous case down, another equally historic decision to go. The Supreme Court returns to the bench Monday with 17 cases still unresolved, including its first-ever comprehensive look at the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

The guns case - including Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns - is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive.

...

Last week, the court delivered the biggest opinion of the term to date with its ruling, sharply contested by the dissenting justices, that guarantees some constitutional rights to foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 5-4 decision, which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for his four more liberal colleagues, was the first case this term that broke along ideological lines.

The conservative-liberal split was seen frequently last term, including in cases that limited abortion rights, reined in voluntary school desegregation plans, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination and prodded the Bush administration to combat global warming by regulating tailpipe emissions. Kennedy was the only justice in the majority in all those cases, siding with conservatives in all but the global-warming dispute.

It's hardly unusual that the cases that take until late spring to resolve are the most contentious and most likely to produce narrow majorities.

The dispute over gun rights poses several important questions. Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the court has never definitively said what it means to have a right to keep and bear arms. The justices also could indicate whether, even with a strong statement in support of gun rights, Washington's handgun ban and other gun control laws can be upheld.

Officials at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said recently that they expect Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban to fall but believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive.

...

Retirements typically are announced at the end of the term, although it would be a huge surprise if anyone decided to retire this year with a presidential election looming and little prospect of a nominee being confirmed before then.

Five justices, though, will be at least 70 by the time the court reconvenes in October. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Justice Antonin Scalia is 72, Kennedy will turn 72 in July and Justice Stephen Breyer will celebrate his 70th birthday in August.

In the meantime, what is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence saying?

Here's an article from their website dated June 18:

A column in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer by the board president of Washington Ceasefire, Ralph Fascitelli:

This month the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the Washington, D.C., gun ban and with it, the Second Amendment, which deals with the rights of an individual to own a gun.

It is a moot point for residents of Washington, where state law clearly guarantees one’s right to own a gun without the ambiguity of a “within a state militia” qualifying clause. The question here is not whether individuals have a right to own a gun but whether they have a good reason and what rules and regulations should be applied.

The ongoing rhetorical battle over the Second Amendment should not obscure the immense problem we face with gun violence in this state. Each week we lose about a dozen people to gun violence and dozens more are injured. Since 9/11 more people have died in Washington from guns than died on that fateful day. Gun violence is everybody’s problem and has been estimated to cost the state $2 billion annually or more than $1,000 per household in higher taxes, insurance charges and health care costs.

Washington Ceasefire believes we can reduce the almost 600 annual gun deaths in this state in half over the next decade with a few common-sense measures.

First, think twice before you have a gun in the home, and know the facts. Households with guns have a five times greater chance of a completed suicide; consider that on average we lose one person a day in this state to suicide with a gun.

Let's look at this statement in detail:

The question here is not whether individuals have a right to own a gun but whether they have a good reason and what rules and regulations should be applied.

The Brady Bunch concedes the "individual right to own a gun", but questions whether (residents of the State of Washington) "have a good reason".

In essence, Brady is appealing to your moral values to determine whether you should own a gun.

The implied assumption is that you should have a good reason before you make the decision to own a gun; and in the same breath, the suggest that " ...rules and regulations should be applied."

So, even if you think you have a good reason to own a gun, Brady wants to impose rules and regulations which would limit your access to a firearm. No justification is stated; even though they concede that that you have a right to own a firearm, they still want to regulate your access to firearms.

It's difficult to understand what they're saying, isn't it? Go back and read the last paragraph. Their emphasis is not on your right to own a firearm; their emphasis is on rules and regulations. It's not your rights; it's about their control over your rights.

They're big on "losses", they're more than willing to talk about "suicide" by firearm; but there isn't a word about how violence is prevented by private ownership of firearms.
________________________________________________

In the meantime, Brady has conceded DC v HELLER, but they are still looking forward to finding loopholes in their on-going effort to curtail your rights:

… “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.”

What are they saying here?

... 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.

Assuming that the Supreme Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, Brady is still looking for ways to get around the ruling of the Supreme Court.

That means they will continue to support circuitous means to restrict your ability to keep and bear arms. They will support microstamping ammunition ... which is unproven technology and single-source technology.

They will support Encoded Ammunition, which (like microstamping ammunition) is unproven and single-source, but also would impose such a huge financial and technological burden on the ammunition manufacturing industry as to price ammunition beyond the means of most citizens, and cause the manufacturers to close their doors because they are unable to meet the unreasonable requirements implied.

They will lobby for restrictions on the number of firearms you can buy every month (not every year ... so if you go to one gun show a year and find two guns you want, you can't buy them both.)

They will lobby for universal background checks: we already have background checks when buying from a dealer, but their proposal will regulate transfer of firearms within a family; between friends; and any other non-dealer negotiations.

They would identify 'super dangerous class of weapons' (such as the AR, the Evil Black Rifle).

In short, there are any number of schemes they can use to restrict your right to keep and bear arms.

Since they have already conceded your right to protect your home and your family, they will now go after the WAY in which you choose to provide such protection.

They'll fight you every step along the way to a true acknowledgment of firearms freedom.

You can ask: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

They understand it, all right. But they have their own private agenda, and they will not concede a single step.

They think they're right, and you are stupid and misinformed.

What are you going to do about it?