I mean, given that we’ve had Parker, and now a New Jersey court (frigging New Jersey!), saying the second amendment protects an individual right, the folks at the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy center have to be crapping in their pants.
UPDATE: The Brady’s seem to have noticed my fun at their expense, and commented that they aren’t really that worried:
Even the Parker decision — which is definitely regarded as out-of-step with precedent — allowed that “reasonable restrictions†would still be permitted under their new interpretation of the Second Amendment. So the things we actually advocate for (background checks, anti-trafficking laws, child-safety locks, law enforcement) aren’t impacted by the Parker ruling.
They are right about Parker still leaving a lot wide open, but you have to admit, for pro-second amendment decisions to be coming out of New Jersey is pretty startling, even to me. I can’t imagine that if an individual rights view is ultimately upheld, it will make things easier for them.
Hey Sebastian – I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we Brady folks are panicking. Even the Parker decision — which is definitely regarded as out-of-step with precedent — allowed that “reasonable restrictions” would still be permitted under their new interpretation of the Second Amendment. So the things we actually advocate for (background checks, anti-trafficking laws, child-safety locks, law enforcement) aren’t impacted by the Parker ruling. In fact, those were specifically cited in Parker as examples of “reasonable restrictions” that would not conflict with that court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.
-zach
Wow, so I do have some Brady readers. I admire your bravery for posting, and hope my commenters will keep things civil.
I will agree that the how the second amendment is ultimately constructed by the courts is still a giant question mark, but it doesn’t appear to me that things are heading in a direction your organization would be more comfortable with. Sure, the “out of step” Parker decision could be ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court, but there’s substantial support emerging around the individual rights theory, first in academia and now the courts.
As I explained (under a different userid) at THR, that bit about reasonable restrictions is actually dicta and wouldnt be binding.
The questions necessarily decided in overturning the DC ban:
-whether the 2nd amendment protects an individual right
-whether one must be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd amendent’s right
-whether modern handguns are protected as “arms”
-whether an individual right includes private uses such as self defense
Whether registration or training requirements are constitutional was NOT decided in Parker. Those questions were not actually before the court in Parker. Statements in the opinion regarding these subjects are not binding precedent. The court can go either way on those questions when they are properly before the court.
Just thought you might want to know that.