PDA

View Full Version : Brady lays it all out in MD amicus


ADH
03-22-2011, 9:42 PM
Most of us will not be at all surprised by this, but it's an important reminder of EXACTLY what the opposition wants. No matter what kind of lip service Helmke or his ilk ever pay to "law abiding gun owners", this is what they believe at their core;

In its brief, the Brady group argues that Marylanders have no Second Amendment right to possess and carry weapons in public places and says that the Supreme Court upheld concealed carry bans. "A right to keep and bear arms does not prevent states from restricting or forbidding guns in public places," attorneys for the group argue.

Such is their understanding of "common sense" gun law. This is what they want and we must not allow one inch. Not. One. Inch.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-md-concealed-carry-lawsuit-20110322-15,0,7621734.story

Window_Seat
03-22-2011, 9:54 PM
Again, this goes to show that the BC isn't a campaign to prevent gun violence, it is a campaign to prevent legal and lawful gun ownership.

That said, where is it that they said "forbidding guns in sensitive places"??? I'm sure it won't be that difficult to find another brief someplace where they make that statement.

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
03-22-2011, 10:05 PM
I am glad the opposition is making such a valiant effort, because when they finally lose at the SCOTUS, it will be clear once and for all that they are full crap, and that they've always been full of crap.

Every twisted, contorted grotesque argument they can think of as laid in this brief, having been dressed up to the 9's and trotted out as their finest effort will finally have a 12 gauge, slug-sized gaping hole right through the middle of it.

I cannot WAIT to see the look on Henigan's face when carry outside the home is finally recognized and codified. I won't even entertain the possibility that it won't eventually happen, because that scenario is too ugly to even imagine.

Blackhawk556
03-22-2011, 10:05 PM
yeah, and we only have a 1A right in the home right??... right?

ADH
03-23-2011, 8:26 AM
I am glad the opposition is making such a valiant effort, because when they finally lose at the SCOTUS, it will be clear once and for all that they are full crap, and that they've always been full of crap.

It's kinda like we're at that point in an action movie when the bad guy is delivering a wild-eyed monologue while unknowingly backing slowly off the edge of a cliff.

DisgruntledReaper
03-23-2011, 8:30 AM
I am glad the opposition is making such a valiant effort, because when they finally lose at the SCOTUS, it will be clear once and for all that they are full crap, and that they've always been full of crap.

Every twisted, contorted grotesque argument they can think of as laid in this brief, having been dressed up to the 9's and trotted out as their finest effort will finally have a 12 gauge, slug-sized gaping hole right through the middle of it.

I cannot WAIT to see the look on Henigan's face when carry outside the home is finally recognized and codified. I won't even entertain the possibility that it won't eventually happen, because that scenario is too ugly to even imagine.

Dont bet on it... the SCOTUS is getting more 'liberal' at the moment...the newest 2 judges have been appointed by obummer and some recent decisions by the court regarding things such as searches, the decision that you have to verbally declare you are exercising your 5th A right(it is no longer 'automatic') and a couple others means this is getting to be more crap not less......

I hope you are right but something is stinking in the SCOTUS fridge.....

Boo_Radley
03-23-2011, 8:38 AM
In its brief, the Brady group argues that Marylanders have no Second Amendment right to possess and carry weapons in public places and says that the Supreme Court upheld concealed carry bans. "A right to keep and bear arms does not prevent states from restricting or forbidding guns in public places," attorneys for the group argue.

I can't help but think that this is the exact same conclusion that A.G. Holder's "Law Enforcement Safety Initiative" will come to as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/22/law.enforcement.safety/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%2 9

sfpcservice
03-23-2011, 9:02 AM
Just a question, not an argument:

Heller and McDonald only stated "in the home" didn't they? I've been curious how they affect public places because to my knowledge that was not the issue in either case right?

Blackhawk556
03-23-2011, 9:08 AM
Weren't the words, "most notably in the home"???

tiki
03-23-2011, 9:28 AM
Heller was a challenge to a law forbidding guns in the home. That is why the Heller decision is specific to the home. Nowhere did they say that the right is limited to the home, and, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't make mention of the home, it is reasonable to conclude thta the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the home.
However, that doesn't mean that a liberally stacked court won't decide at a later time that the 2nd Amendment is restricted to the home. Nor does it mean that a liberally stacked court in the future won't revisit Heller and say that the decision was flawed and reverse it.

Maestro Pistolero
03-23-2011, 9:47 AM
Dont bet on it... the SCOTUS is getting more 'liberal' at the moment...
. . . . I hope you are right but something is stinking in the SCOTUS fridge.....

At this point, if the court were to ignore it's own precedent (as Sotomayor did in McDonald) and attempt to seal the vault on 2A rights outside of the home, I hate to imagine what patriots might do at that point.

But I trust the court will do the right thing, recent appointees notwithstanding. I believe Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and maybe two more have enough ways to influence the court, that a line would be drawn on this fundamental right. We can only hope and trust that's the case.

Looks like I will be renewing my driver's license once or twice more before it's done, though.

yellowfin
03-23-2011, 10:02 AM
At this point, if the court were to ignore it's own precedent (as Sotomayor did in McDonald) and attempt to seal the vault on 2A rights outside of the home, I hate to imagine what patriots might do at that point.

But I trust the court will do the right thing, recent appointees notwithstanding. I believe Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and maybe two more have enough ways to influence the court, that a line would be drawn on this fundamental right. We can only hope and trust that's the case.
And STILL some people here thought it was perfectly fine to be content with Sotomayor and Kagan simply replacing predecessors and keeping it 5-4, that it wasn't worth the fight to demand it be 6-3 or 7-2 in our favor. :mad::mad::mad:

bulgron
03-23-2011, 10:06 AM
And STILL some people here thought it was perfectly fine to be content with Sotomayor and Kagan simply replacing predecessors and keeping it 5-4, that it wasn't worth the fight to demand it be 6-3 or 7-2 in our favor. :mad::mad::mad:

Those same people thought it was perfectly fine to vote for a guy with no executive experience, no diplomatic experience, no military experience, no security experience, no fiscal experience, no business experience, and Simply No Experience.

How's that working out for us, I wonder.

Even if they don't want to vote based on gun rights (in which case, what are they doing hanging out here??), you'd think they'd at least want to vote for someone who has some, you know, experience ....

But that's America for you. As soon as you have someone who actually knows what they're doing, kick 'em out the door in favor of someone cheaper or prettier or trendier.

Not even the old Romans were this stupid.

OleCuss
03-23-2011, 10:07 AM
IIRC, with Kagan at least, it was a matter of that was the best we could hope for - and I still think that it was.

Elections have consequences. If you elect fascists you'll get fascist SCOTUS judges. No real way to get around that.

ADH
03-23-2011, 10:17 AM
Just a question, not an argument:

Heller and McDonald only stated "in the home" didn't they? I've been curious how they affect public places because to my knowledge that was not the issue in either case right?

While the law being challenged in Heller was a prohibition on handgun ownership in the home, there was language included in the decision related to the very definition of what it means to bear arms. It should be noted that the court's understanding of the natural meaning of "bear arms" is not explicitly limited to the home.

From Heller;


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ” ... We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Maestro Pistolero
03-23-2011, 10:32 AM
Those same people thought it was perfectly fine to vote for a guy with no executive experience, no diplomatic experience, no military experience, no security experience, no fiscal experience, no business experience, and Simply No Experience.And once upon a time, a nasty crack habit.

Stonewalker
03-23-2011, 11:02 AM
Most of us will not be at all surprised by this, but it's an important reminder of EXACTLY what the opposition wants. No matter what kind of lip service Helmke or his ilk ever pay to "law abiding gun owners", this is what they believe at their core;



Such is their understanding of "common sense" gun law. This is what they want and we must not allow one inch. Not. One. Inch.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-md-concealed-carry-lawsuit-20110322-15,0,7621734.story

Excellent piece of information! Thanks for pointing that out. It is important to point out to the "on the fence" types that this is exactly what the anti-gunners want.

thedrickel
03-23-2011, 11:06 AM
And once upon a time, a nasty crack habit.

Can you back up this claim?

yellowfin
03-23-2011, 11:12 AM
Those same people thought it was perfectly fine to vote for a guy with no executive experience, no diplomatic experience, no military experience, no security experience, no fiscal experience, no business experience, and Simply No Experience.

How's that working out for us, I wonder.

Even if they don't want to vote based on gun rights (in which case, what are they doing hanging out here??), you'd think they'd at least want to vote for someone who has some, you know, experience ....

But that's America for you. As soon as you have someone who actually knows what they're doing, kick 'em out the door in favor of someone cheaper or prettier or trendier.

Not even the old Romans were this stupid.I'm not even talking about those who stupidly voted for the current White House occupant, I'm talking about those on our side who said it wasn't worth our time to fight against the two nominees, that we shouldn't have held the line even if it meant keeping 2 court vacancies for 4 years, keeping out those two and however many other nominees better or worse, until we got 2 pro gun SCOTUS judges. There were a LOT of people saying that, even people we respect in fairly high positions, even high positions here. I'm saying we should have a NO MEANS NO policy, not NO SOMETIMES MEANS NO BUT we've got to be reasonable when it's not politically convenient to say NO. Their way which prevailed means we're a heart attack away from 4-5 or 3-6 instead of 6-3 or 5-4 still in our favor. I think it's a foolish gamble we shouldn't have taken with something that means far too much to gamble with.

OleCuss
03-23-2011, 11:19 AM
Can you back up this claim?

Obama is the source. He's the one that said he used to use cocaine.

I dunno if it was "crack" or how bad the habit was, but if you believe Obama then you have to believe that he used cocaine.

thedrickel
03-23-2011, 11:26 AM
Big whoop, it's been 20 years since we had a president that didn't do drugs.

OleCuss
03-23-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm not even talking about those who voted for the current White House occupant, I'm talking about those on our side who said it wasn't worth our time to fight against the two nominees, that we shouldn't have held the line even if it meant keeping 2 court vacancies for 4 years, keeping out those two and however many other nominees better or worse, until we got 2 pro gun SCOTUS judges. There were a LOT of people saying that, even people we respect in fairly high positions, even high positions here. I'm saying we should have a NO MEANS NO policy, not NO Means OK, we've got to be reasonable when it's not politically convenient to say NO. Their way which prevailed means we're a heart attack away from 4-5 or 3-6 instead of 6-3 or 5-4 still in our favor. I think it's a foolish gamble we shouldn't have taken with something that means far too much to gamble with.

The reality of the situation is that Obama has the White House and got to make the appointments. The Senate was owned by the Democrats and we've got a few Republicans in the Senate who either have no discernible spine (or maybe just no spine that I can recognize).

There really wasn't a chance that an all-out effort on the part of the RKBA community could have defeated Kagan's appointment. It wasn't in the cards. We were not going to get the votes to block Kagan in the Senate no matter what we did. Don't fight a battle which you're going to lose unless death is the preferred alternative.

At this time the Republicans would have a decent chance of defeating an unfriendly SCOTUS appointment. The problem is that any nominee would say that they accept Heller and McDonald, and that would make it harder to vote against them based on 2A grounds. To make things worse, if the nominee were asked about scrutiny levels and such they can legitimately say that such matters are likely to be heard by SCOTUS and thus they cannot comment usefully.

Opposing can be counterproductive.

And a potentially unfriendly SCOTUS in the future means that it is thus all the more important to ensure that only carefully chosen and crafted RKBA cases are wending their way up to SCOTUS. We need every advantage we can get.

OleCuss
03-23-2011, 11:32 AM
Big whoop, it's been 20 years since we had a president that didn't do drugs.

I didn't say it was a big whoop.

But there is no good evidence that any of the White House occupants other than Obama and Clinton (and it's a little iffy on Clinton) have used illicit drugs.

Edit: JFK was using a lot of meds that could affect judgment and should not have been holding the office - but I don't know that he used illicit drugs.

rero360
03-23-2011, 11:45 AM
I would love to see Alan Gura tear that amicus apart, sentence by sentence.

:gura:

p_shooter
03-23-2011, 3:19 PM
I didn't say it was a big whoop.

But there is no good evidence that any of the White House occupants other than Obama and Clinton (and it's a little iffy on Clinton) have used illicit drugs.

Edit: JFK was using a lot of meds that could affect judgment and should not have been holding the office - but I don't know that he used illicit drugs.

Supposedly JFK did LSD and Marijuana with Mary Meyer, right there in the white house. But I don't think LSD was illicit at that time. But with the Boggs act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control act of 1956 made the first time possession of marijuana an offense with a minimum of 2 to 10 years with fines up to $20,000. :eek:

I guess there's no "good evidence for this", just a lot of hearsay. I believe it though. Mary Meyer was known to run with that crowd and was affiliated with Timothy Leary.

Oops, sorry of the thread jack...

Maestro Pistolero
03-23-2011, 3:20 PM
Can you back up this claim?

No. Allegations specifically about crack use, including mine are not substantiated. But he has admitted on video and in his book to cocaine and marijuana use. And honestly, even if he admitted it, it wouldn't concern me in the least. It's what he does as president that is disconcerting to me.

Mute
03-23-2011, 4:55 PM
Just keep feeding them more rope.

kcbrown
03-23-2011, 5:47 PM
Those same people thought it was perfectly fine to vote for a guy with no executive experience, no diplomatic experience, no military experience, no security experience, no fiscal experience, no business experience, and Simply No Experience.

How's that working out for us, I wonder.


Lack of experience is the least important reason to object to the guy.

I'll take an inexperienced but ethical and freedom-championing person over an experienced and unethical person any day, especially for POTUS.

ADH
03-24-2011, 9:52 AM
For what it's worth, here's Brady's own press release.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1365/

They actually managed to summon the words "Second Amendment Foundation" this time.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/gura.gif

Zomgie
03-24-2011, 10:17 AM
I didn't say it was a big whoop.

But there is no good evidence that any of the White House occupants other than Obama and Clinton (and it's a little iffy on Clinton) have used illicit drugs.

Edit: JFK was using a lot of meds that could affect judgment and should not have been holding the office - but I don't know that he used illicit drugs.

There's no good evidence on anyone, other than what they've told the public.

With Bush:

During his 2000 presidential campaign there were persistent questions about a history of cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine since 1992, then quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974 (age 28). NBC reporter David Bloom then noted "that current White House appointees must disclose any drug use since their 18th birthday". Bush, however, refused to make a disclosure, instead admitting he'd made mistakes in the past, and if voters didn't like that "they can go find somebody else to vote for. That's the wonderful thing about democracy"

In one recorded excerpt, Bush said, "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

I don't particularly care - as long as it doesn't affect their job performance it doesn't bother me.

yellowfin
03-24-2011, 10:36 AM
At this time the Republicans would have a decent chance of defeating an unfriendly SCOTUS appointment. The problem is that any nominee would say that they accept Heller and McDonald, and that would make it harder to vote against them based on 2A grounds. To make things worse, if the nominee were asked about scrutiny levels and such they can legitimately say that such matters are likely to be heard by SCOTUS and thus they cannot comment usefully.Then we instruct them to not go by what the candidates say, but what they have done. We knew Sotomayor was horrible. She has no place on a bench anywhere except maybe scrubbing baseball stadium or park picnic benches. Why in the world did some on our side say or act like they didn't know?

Opposing can be counterproductive.Almost as bad as accepting what's handed to you when it's as bad as what we've been getting.

Maestro Pistolero
03-24-2011, 3:15 PM
We knew Sotomayor was horrible. She has no place on a bench anywhere except maybe scrubbing baseball stadium or park picnic benches. Why in the world did some on our side say or act like they didn't know? Indeed. She said with that smirky smile that Heller vs DC was "settled law" and that the 2A codified an individual right to keep and bear arms. She forgot to add "but not in Chicago". So we have a liar on the high court. Nice.

vantec08
03-24-2011, 7:39 PM
I find it astonishing that the Brady Bunch has been granted "friend of the court" to submit briefs and opinions, with their obvious lack and disregard of CONUS.

N6ATF
03-24-2011, 8:01 PM
Just waiting for SCOTUS to declare all the victim disarmers personas non grata.

krucam
03-25-2011, 4:47 AM
Not the Brady Amicus, but a verbatim quote from the States Cross-MSJ on Tuesday:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT FOR LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN THE
HOME, SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS.

Got that? :rolleyes:

yellowfin
03-25-2011, 5:05 AM
Guaranteed with exceptions is like a swimming pool that's 85% free of alligators.