PDA

View Full Version : Brady's fallback: Second is individual but...


hoffmang
12-02-2007, 5:49 PM
This is downright amusing. The Brady Campaign is now conceding that the Second Amendment is an individual right but government can still infringe it all they want. Paul Helmke writes up the new strategy in this editorial (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/the-second-amendment-the_b_74971.html) on The Huffington Post. David Hardy, who I read about this from, points out that this is a very big change for them as they were asserting in court filings (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/bradyamicus.pdf) in 2003 that the Second wasn't an individual right.

I think they are expecting to loose Heller...

-Gene

aileron
12-02-2007, 6:12 PM
hahahahaha.


Uh, okay. So now were going to have to work on the small word called infringe next; that will be a sticky issue for him.

Hmmmph.

Actually reading his argument, will get him into bigger trouble. We are the militia, so we have a right to defend ourselves our neighbors, our neighborhoods, and our state, as well as our country, using the weapons of our time.

The state is not to interfere with militia practice. Sooooo... we will be able to buy the weapons needed to defend our state and our country and we will have the legal authority to practice in our states.

Anybody up for demanding our right to drill.

aileron
12-02-2007, 6:25 PM
He is also eschewing the idea that you have two distinct purposes or clauses working in the 2nd.

The right of the people to form a well operating militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms. (Not just hunting and sport, its open ended, no need to declare what; that would be dangerous to liberty)


The court, however, simply obscured the real issue. There is no question that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to “the people” -- that much is clear from the text. The issue is: What right does the Second Amendment grant to the people? Is it the right to possess and use guns for private purposes like hunting or self-defense, as asserted by the Parker majority, or rather the right to be armed for purposes related only to service in a government-organized militia?

I wonder if he wakes in the middle of the night with these epiphanies.

Stanze
12-02-2007, 6:38 PM
Abolish NFA, GCA and all other(SB-23, etc.) 2nd infringing so-called laws now!

Fjold
12-02-2007, 6:47 PM
The 2nd will mean whatever they want it to mean today, in 2003 it meant what they wanted it to mean back then and tomorrow it will mean what they want it to mean. Ad nauseum.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 7:01 PM
Frank,

That's provably and obviously wrong. In 2003 Brady said it meant nothing and now Brady is saying that the right does belong to individuals.

If by they you instead mean the government, well that's going even better for us.

-Gene

Rob P.
12-02-2007, 7:05 PM
Again, the Brady's (like everyone else it seems) misunderstands that the Constitution doesn't "GIVE" us rights. It limits those areas where gov can operate by saying that gov CANNOT DO THINGS (like infringe on our right to keep and bear arms).

Fjold
12-02-2007, 7:13 PM
We need a sarcasm flag. :D

I was parroting how I think that they (The Brady idiots) think.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 7:20 PM
Frank, sorry for being dense. I blame pain meds from the stitches I had to get today..

-Gene

cartman
12-02-2007, 7:53 PM
I don't know if you read the comments posted below the article but some of the anti people are just down right funny. The lady couldn't even come up with falsefied facts toback up her arguement.

Fjold
12-02-2007, 8:14 PM
Frank, sorry for being dense. I blame pain meds from the stitches I had to get today..

-Gene


Ouch! hopefully nothing serious.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 8:50 PM
Ouch! hopefully nothing serious.

My dog decided that his response to me disciplining him was to try to remove my fingerprint...

-Gene

Librarian
12-02-2007, 9:39 PM
My dog decided that his response to me disciplining him was to try to remove my fingerprint...

-GeneObviously attempting to enable a life of crime for you - nice doggy!

I hope it doesn't hurt too much to type; every time I injure a finger I find another thing I do that just plain hurts.

CCWFacts
12-02-2007, 10:28 PM
That's the thing to understand about this case: It is an individual right, and it is subject to regulation, just like all the other rights. The plaintiffs' attorneys have said that many times. The question is, what type of scrutiny or test will be used to test a law? It will be interesting to see. The good news is that what's "reasonable" in the US as a whole is a lot more liberal than what our reps here in CA think is reasonable, so being under some Federal definition of reasonable will be a big improvement for us.

metalhead357
12-02-2007, 11:09 PM
Interesting....

Couldn't this be argued much the same way as the DC give up on the long guns? I mean you have the *other side* litterally tipping thier hand and aquiessing(sp?) that the 2nd IS and individual right. Would seem if the biggest opponent to free-guns in America even believes it is a individual right- Somebody outta make SCOUTUS or at least the PRO-rights crowd aware of the flip flop.....

N6ATF
12-03-2007, 12:39 AM
My dog decided that his response to me disciplining him was to try to remove my fingerprint...

-Gene

Sounds like a visit from Cesar Millan is in order.

hoffmang
12-03-2007, 12:59 AM
Sounds like a visit from Cesar Millan is in order.

I was actually requiring him to show me his belly and he was not agreeing. He had taken the initial correction I gave him but wasn't being as compliant as I want after it.

-Gene

aileron
12-03-2007, 6:35 AM
I hope it doesn't hurt too much to type; every time I injure a finger I find another thing I do that just plain hurts.

Please Librarian, I like you, but we don't want to hear about your sex life. :43:

AfricanHunter
12-03-2007, 10:25 AM
I was actually requiring him to show me his belly and he was not agreeing. He had taken the initial correction I gave him but wasn't being as compliant as I want after it.

-Gene

Just Curious, what kind of dog do you have?

hoffmang
12-03-2007, 1:17 PM
Wow we're OT. Border Collie/Corgie mix with a Napoleonic complex.

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
12-03-2007, 1:29 PM
Wow we're OT. Border Collie/Corgie mix with a Napoleonic complex.

-Gene

Ahh, Gene, always pushing the borders, err, boundaries, eh?

Librarian
12-03-2007, 5:25 PM
Please Librarian, I like you, but we don't want to hear about your sex life. :43:

:jump:

Or, "LOL".

FreedomIsNotFree
12-03-2007, 5:42 PM
I believe the Brady's see the writing on the wall...that is why they are switching tactics.

Now they claim that even if the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, its predicated on the individuals membership/association with the "well regulated" Federal/State militia.

So, in essence they are trying to get to the same point...just taking a different road. For those of us that follow these finer details there are a couple questions that beg to be asked....

1. Federal code recognizes the organized militia as well as the UNorganized militia. Understanding that most of us are part of the UNorganized militia, would you, the Brady's, argue that its only the organized militia that is entitled to 2nd Amendment protections?

2. Can you, again the Brady's, please explain how the term "shall not be infringed" applies...considering your new found understanding of the individuals 2nd Amendment protections.

metalhead357
12-03-2007, 5:50 PM
Wow we're OT. Border Collie/Corgie mix with a Napoleonic complex.

-Gene


So go back and repond to m' question please:D

SemiAutoSam
12-03-2007, 5:51 PM
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/Political/thesigning.jpg


I believe the Brady's see the writing on the wall...that is why they are switching tactics.

Now they claim that even if the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, its predicated on the individuals membership/association with the "well regulated" Federal/State militia.

So, in essence they are trying to get to the same point...just taking a different road. For those of us that follow these finer details there are a couple questions that beg to be asked....

1. Federal code recognizes the organized militia as well as the UNorganized militia. Understanding that most of us are part of the UNorganized militia, would you, the Brady's, argue that its only the organized militia that is entitled to 2nd Amendment protections?

2. Can you, again the Brady's, please explain how the term "shall not be infringed" applies...considering your new found understanding of the individuals 2nd Amendment protections.

Fjold
12-03-2007, 5:54 PM
Wow we're OT. Border Collie/Corgie mix with a Napoleonic complex.

-Gene

Sorry to highjack the thread but I have to see a Border Collie/Corgie mix. Got a picture?

We have a Border Collie but that's got to be the oddest combination that I've heard of in years.

SemiAutoSam
12-03-2007, 5:59 PM
That's no where at strange as my late MIL's dog.

Its called a Labradoodle.

http://www.1stopfordogs.com/images/dogs2005/labradoodle-puppies-northwest.jpg

Sorry to hijack the thread but I have to see a Border Collie/Corgi mix. Got a picture?

We have a Border Collie but that's got to be the oddest combination that I've heard of in years.

6172crew
12-03-2007, 7:05 PM
Sorry to highjack the thread but I have to see a Border Collie/Corgie mix. Got a picture?

We have a Border Collie but that's got to be the oddest combination that I've heard of in years.

Yep,another B collie owner here.:D

fairfaxjim
12-03-2007, 7:30 PM
hahahahaha.


Uh, okay. So now were going to have to work on the small word called infringe next; that will be a sticky issue for him.

Hmmmph.

Actually reading his argument, will get him into bigger trouble. We are the militia, so we have a right to defend ourselves our neighbors, our neighborhoods, and our state, as well as our country, using the weapons of our time.

The state is not to interfere with militia practice. Sooooo... we will be able to buy the weapons needed to defend our state and our country and we will have the legal authority to practice in our states.

Anybody up for demanding our right to drill.

If you want to drill, I suggest you do it alone, otherwise you may be in violation of this:

PC11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

Rhys898
12-03-2007, 8:03 PM
but if heller goes through we could fight PC11460(a) on 2A grounds :)

Jer

hoffmang
12-03-2007, 8:11 PM
The new Brady argument is a variant of the sophisticated collective rights model, but it has an inherent flaw of being co-opted by our side to point out that a militia nature really challenges NFA...

Here is a border/corgie:
http://www.hoffmang.com/albums/4th06/DSC_1910.sized.jpghttp://www.hoffmang.com/albums/Delta8-2004/0408DLTA_049.sized.jpg

He learned how to fly this weekend...

-Gene

jdberger
12-03-2007, 8:35 PM
Here is a border/corgie:
http://www.hoffmang.com/albums/4th06/DSC_1910.sized.jpghttp://www.hoffmang.com/albums/Delta8-2004/0408DLTA_049.sized.jpg

He learned how to fly this weekend...

-Gene

Oh? Is that an airplane? I thought it was your boat? :p

FreedomIsNotFree
12-03-2007, 8:51 PM
After the bite, was that when he learned to fly?

hoffmang
12-03-2007, 8:55 PM
Milliseconds after the adrenaline started flowing, he performed his best underdog absent the cape - yes.

He's normally a darn good pup and cute enough to get away with murder...

-Gene

Rhys898
12-03-2007, 9:36 PM
on the weird dog combo's here is my chihuahua/cardigan welsh corgi mix
http://www.jeremystroud.com/max/milo.jpg

and here is my pug/lhasa apso mix
http://www.jeremystroud.com/max/images/DSCF0011.jpg

Jer

hoffmang
12-03-2007, 9:45 PM
At least yours probably doesn't have bloodlust/zombie effect...

-Gene

C.G.
12-03-2007, 10:08 PM
I think this thread has gone to the dogs.:smilielol5:

artherd
12-04-2007, 12:21 AM
I think they are expecting to loose Heller...

-Gene

A wakeup call, those who would disarm us are misguided and evil; clearly they are NOT stupid.

EDIT: Cute doggies!

aileron
12-04-2007, 6:23 AM
If you want to drill, I suggest you do it alone, otherwise you may be in violation of this:

PC11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

Figures....

dustoff31
12-04-2007, 6:38 AM
I'm with you in principal, but you must remember that the state is supposed to ensure that the militia is trained, that is, regulated, according to standards prescribed by congress.

There currently exists no prescribed training standards for the unorganized militia. Membership in the unorganized militia is essentially, nothing more than your draft card.

Again, I'm not saying this is as it should be. It's simply the way it is.




The state is not to interfere with militia practice. Sooooo... we will be able to buy the weapons needed to defend our state and our country and we will have the legal authority to practice in our states.

pc_city
12-04-2007, 7:09 AM
I don't have a dog but my kitty sometimes gets out of hand.
http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/0/T/T/sniper_cat.jpg

drclark
12-04-2007, 1:31 PM
Well, they could always argue that we are no longer a free state so the need for the militia to secure it is obsolete :eek:

drc

milsurpshooter
12-04-2007, 2:43 PM
well what happens when we want to leave. wam, bam thank you mam theres your militia. a dictatorship doesn't work you don't have people to dictate to.

Liberty1
12-11-2007, 10:13 PM
http://www.examiner.com/a-1096723~Former_D_C__police_chief_shifts_stance_on_ gun_ban.html

Looks like the Bradys aren't the only ones doing the Potomac Two Step and changing their positions.

"Former D.C. police chief shifts stance on gun ban"

Former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey is shifting his position on Washington's 31-year ban on handgun ownership as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the issue.

Ramsey says there needs to be reasonable control over guns, but he says handgun registration can provide that control.

Jarhead4
12-12-2007, 8:08 PM
http://www.examiner.com/a-1096723~Former_D_C__police_chief_shifts_stance_on_ gun_ban.html

Looks like the Bradys aren't the only ones doing the Potomac Two Step and changing their positions.

I was in Fairfax VA when he said that. It was on the news that night. He still thinks that AW should be ban though. When will they ever learn?