Brady Foundation "The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations"

[problemchild]

Spun to the -------------------------------->LEFT


..............
The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations


Now send us your money so we can fight these evil gun toting killers!


In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.



The Court has rejected the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.



The Brady Center, joined by several national law enforcement groups, filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to allow for “reasonable” gun laws.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court determined that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

[CnCFunFactory]

They are a funny group aren't they.....

[jl123]

Hitler would have been happy to have people that could spin like that on his staff.

[edward]

Hahahaha, you know I think we were all expecting them to release something like this. But they worded it in such purely refined b***s*** that I'm somewhat in Awe.

The U.S. Supreme Court has Reaffirmed Gun Reguations!..... *By chastising and remanding a gun regulation.

Spun to the -------------------------------->LEFT


..............
The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations


Now send us your money so we can fight these evil gun toting killers!


In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.



http://www.bradycampaign.org/

[Sinixstar]

The problem is - it's not entirely bull****.
I said a few years ago on THR that the war isn't going to be won or lost in a few single sweeping rulings. Rather it will be won or lost on who can rack up the most small victories and push the line further towards their goal. All this ruling has done is opened up the playing field for exactly that game to start.

This allows them to continue the incremental approach that has been so successful for them. For decades they've been able to make this death-of-a-thousand-cuts style attack and it's worked quite successfully. We've hit back with a counter attack, and struck a decent blow today. In doing so, the courts left it open for them to continue their 1000-cuts strategy. They have shown they have the patience to wait decades if they have to, so for them to be able to continue this approach is a great victory.


Incorporation of the 2nd doesn't mean we all live in AZ overnight kids...

[unusedusername]

You know that the Bradys have some good marketing people in their midst....

It's too bad for their cause that they don't swap out the marketing people with good lawyers... oh well their loss

[Cokebottle]

The Brady's had that press release prepared weeks ago.
They, and we, knew that the court would support "reasonable restrictions".... it is under "reasonable restrictions" that convicted felons, 5250 cases, and those guilty of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns.
There was no way in hell that the SCOTUS would come out and say "The right is absolute with no restrictions" and allow a mentally ill convicted felon to purchase a gun.

But of course, the Brady's will latch on to any glimmer of hope they see in the ruling, and to them, "reasonable restrictions", opens the door for anything and everything SHORT of an outright ban.

The issue at hand is defining "reasonable restrictions".
Sacramento certainly feels that existing California law is "reasonable", but when compared to the laws of the majority of the states, they are extremely prohibitive.

If the lower courts rule that "reasonable restrictions" is defined as being in line with the laws of the majority of states, then that is a very good thing.

[Sinixstar]

The Brady's had that press release prepared weeks ago.
They, and we, knew that the court would support "reasonable restrictions".... it is under "reasonable restrictions" that convicted felons, 5250 cases, and those guilty of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns.
There was no way in hell that the SCOTUS would come out and say "The right is absolute with no restrictions" and allow a mentally ill convicted felon to purchase a gun.

But of course, the Brady's will latch on to any glimmer of hope they see in the ruling, and to them, "reasonable restrictions", opens the door for anything and everything SHORT of an outright ban.

The issue at hand is defining "reasonable restrictions".
Sacramento certainly feels that existing California law is "reasonable", but when compared to the laws of the majority of the states, they are extremely prohibitive.

If the lower courts rule that "reasonable restrictions" is defined as being in line with the laws of the majority of states, then that is a very good thing.

But that's why this is a bigger victory than we might want to give them credit for.
They can lose 99.9% of the time and still make life very difficult for us. All they have to do is keep throwing crap at the wall and the law of big numbers says eventually some of it's going to stick...

[Cokebottle]

But that's why this is a bigger victory than we might want to give them credit for.
They can lose 99.9% of the time and still make life very difficult for us. All they have to do is keep throwing crap at the wall and the law of big numbers says eventually some of it's going to stick...

They've been doing that for 20 years.

Now it's our turn to open up the fire hose and start slowly cleaning the crap from that wall.

[CCWFacts]

They are such liars. They are lying by reframing the issue.

No one was asking the court to declare guns "beyond all regulation". No one asked for it, and no one thought it was on the table, and probably most NRA members are glad that mentally ill felons can't buy Stinger missiles for cash at the corner store, meaning that most NRA members are happy with some degree of regulation.

The question was not, "should this right be completely unregulated" (that was never requested or wanted), but "should this right apply to the states". And the Brady Campaign was defeated on that question. They are such liars to call it a "victory".

[Mulay El Raisuli]

As I look at Mr. Helmke & see his odd, little smile, & his weird eyes, the thought comes to me:

Is he clinically insane?


The Raisuli

[bondmid003]

Hitler would have been happy to have people that could spin like that on his staff.

Well said, the Brady folks could probably spin the holocaust into a positive. Not a good thing really

[Dr Rockso]

[pdq_wizzard]

That guy was sooo funny.

[SwissFluCase]

The Brady Foundation is worried that people are going to ditch the losing team, which is already happening. They had the money, the cultural elite and media on their side, but they never had the level of commitment that we have. I think they are shocked that we have been fighting them since 1975 (and earlier) and have never given up.

Mr. Helmke is still trying to pick up a turd by the clean end...

Regards,


SwissFluCase