Category: 2nd Amendment

Countertop thinks the smart money is on no.  He mentions:

They could either appeal to the Supreme against odds that might eventually make their job much more difficult and result in a decision that would likely undermine much of what they worked for over the last 4 decades OR they could accept the decision and return to DC and pass draconian gun laws, nearly as restrictive but ultimately allowing some right (however negligible) to register new guns while at the same time imposing tremendous regulatory hurdles to any gun shop actually opening up in DC (and therefore undermining that right) and developing a permit approval system that combined with the usual level of D.C. incompetence, effectively accomplishes the same thing as the current ban.Now, if you were Adrian Fenty and Sarah Brady what would you want. The clear loss that amounts to a stake driven through the heart of your barely breathing policy positions? Or a loss that they can easily spin as supportive of hyper aggressive gun laws?

I could see things going that way.  But I also wonder what they really have to lose by going to the Supreme Court.  I think there’s not much risk that the Supreme Court decision in the Parker case is going to be any more broad than the D.C. Circuit’s.  The city can always go back and implement almost-but-not-quite prohibition after the Supreme Court ruling, just as they could now if they choose not to appeal.  The ruling will, of course, mean individual right is now law in all the circuits, but incorporation will still not have been established, so I doubt it will have much meaningful effect.

But thats assuming we win, which I think I wouldn’t give higher than 50/50 odds on.  We only know we have two solid votes in our favor.  We think, but we don’t know, that Alito and Roberts would go along with an individual rights view.   That leaves one more justice to win over, and I wouldn’t want to bet on any of the remaining.  If D.C. wins, and I think that’s just as likely as us winning, it’s a huge victory for the Brady’s over the long term.  We lose one of our greatest rhetorical assets in this debate.  They might want to roll the dice.  At this point, they are kind of dead politically, and a rejection of the second amendment by the Supreme Court could resurrect their movement in a serious way.

Strategically though, it would make sense for them to back down for now, do their near-ban, then go back to the courts with a weaker ban, and probably a different, and not quite so clean a case.  If I were the city, or the Brady’s, this isn’t the ground I’d want to fight on.

But I think there’s a good chance they might want to roll the dice, and go for broke.

Michael Bane says Parker “scares the crap out of me”. It scares me too, but at this point, I think I’m almost equally frightened of the prospect of either D.C. not appealing the case, or the supreme court refusing to hear it. If either of those two things happen, then the Parker ruling stands.  Surely the issue will come before The Court again, probably with a case that not even half as good as this one.

Whether we like or not, this train has been brought up to steam over the past thirty years by the scholars and academics who worked hard to establish that the second amendment protects an individual right. Now it’s left the station, and there’s no bringing it back. At this point, the best we can do is hope it doesn’t run of the rails.

Eugenge Volokh asks the question.  I figured I’d offer an answer.  I already commented roughly the same thing over there.

I suspect an individual rights ruling would give the Democrats some cover to retreat farther from gun control in the 2008 elections. The Democrats aren’t going to want to get backed up against the Bill of Rights on the issue. The die hards in the party will switch their rhetoric to “It’s an individual right, but…”, but more moderate democrats will have some extra political cover from the courts.

A ruling along liberal/conservative lines, with Kennedy joining the liberals I think will most definitely fire up the gun vote quite a bit. But I think the same result will happen even if the the split isn’t as much along ideological lines. I would expect the issue of Supreme Court nominees to be the real issue, rather than specific gun control proposals. The main thing gun owners will want to see is that the candidate will nominate justices that will overturn the Parker decision.

I think where the ideological correlation of the vote will end up coming into play is in what party gains the most from it. If it’s along ideological lines, that will probably tend to play into the hands of the Republicans.  If it’s not, either party could gain.

I should also note that I think a defeat at the Supreme Court, over the long run, is a disaster for us, because of the difficulty, even if you can alter the political climate for a very long time, in getting existing precedent overturned.   It’s not impossible, but it’s an uphill battle.  Over the long run, the idea that the 2nd Amendment is meaningless will take hold, and we’ll be doomed.  The gun controllers will have the political cover they need, and we’ll lose our greatest ally, which is the Bill of Rights itself.

I can hardly blame folks who believe Parker is too big of a gamble.  This will either be our greatest victory, or our greatest defeat.  Here’s hoping the former.

The DC circuit has refused to rehear Parker vs. DC en banc, with all the circuit judges presiding. On to the Supreme Court! (maybe)

Hat tip: SCOTUSblog

Robert Levy wrote, Instapundit and SayUncle linked it.   Levy asserts that the NRA’s actions make it appear that they want to derail Parker by pushing the D.C. personal protection act.

I understand why the NRA is doing this: Parker vs. DC could backfire on us in a big way, and a legislative remedy is the safer short term option.   But I’m more open to Alan Gura’s argument that the Supreme Court is going to hear a second amendment case soon in any regard, and we might as well make the first case a good one.

I’m as nervous about the case as the NRA is, however, and even if Parker gets a favorable ruling, I’m really nervous about the aftermath.  But to use warfare as an analogy, a general doesn’t always get to pick his battlefield, and this is quite likely where circumstance is going to demand that we roll the dice with The Court.  I’m nervous but optimistic.   I’d really like to understand why the NRA isn’t, and hear their point of view, their real point of view, not just the official line.

… it can happen anywhere. Satan called, and said it’s getting chilly.

Ben Wittes of TNR Online is calling for the repeal of the second amendment (sorry about the registration wall).

It’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damned thing.

At least this approach is an honest attempt to work within the bounds of the constitution, rather than just try to pretend certain parts of it that are disfavored aren’t there, but you can’t really repeal a right.  The constitution does not explicitly grant rights, it recognizes them by forbidding the state from interfering with them.  Repealing the second amendment would not end my right to self-defense, it would just eliminate the vehicle by which the constitution protects it; the right to bear arms.

But if the Parker decision is forcing advocate of gun control to take the position of “Let’s just repeal part of the Bill of Rights”, that’s a good thing for us, because that is a political non-starter with the public, and puts us on a much better footing than our opponents.   Amending the constitution requires overwhelming political agreement on an issue, and on this issue, we’re not anywhere near that.   The fact that this is part of the Bill of Rights, rather than something like the income tax, or prohibition, that was added later, will only add to the burden.

Catching up on blogs a bit at a Panera in Oklahoma City, SayUncle shows us an article that makes some parallels between Parker and The Hughes Amendment.   We have to be careful not to jump the gun too quickly.   Parker is a great foundation, but a lot more construction will need to be done before going after the NFA.

If you’ve not heard of them, the Pink Pistols are a firearms advocacy group that also advocates gay rights. If you go to their website, the front page says “Armed Gays don’t get bashed” a phrase which makes me giggle incessantly whenever I see it.

I really like groups like the Pink Pistols, not just because they advocate for the 2nd Amendment, but because they give the radical lefties serious mental fits. They can’t comprehend how someone that “should” be “on their side” is advocating for a dirty “Republican” concept like RKBA. One of the biggest reasons that I like the Pink Pistols is because we need more groups like them. We need gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates that don’t just break the media’s stereotype of gun owners, they smash it.

The biggest reason that I support the Pink Pistols (and any group that exposes the cognitive dissonance inherent in the radical left) is because they also display the deep seated hypocrisy in the “social progressive” movement. Think about this for just a minute: the marxists social progressives are constantly trying to “help the little guy” (generally with your money); however if they were successful in helping the poor not be poor, or minorities be treated equal, they would lose their mandate and by losing their mandate they would lose their power.

It is imperative to those in power (your Nancy Pelosi’s, Ted Kennedy’s, and Dianne Feinsteins) that the poor and disadvantaged remain poor and disadvantaged. Of course, they will make a big show of “helping” the little guy, but their help is little more than free handouts at the expense of the taxpayer – handouts that do nothing to actually help the poor and disadvantaged.

I sometimes feel that the Big Left has forgotten the simple proverb “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”