Brady Campaign and Parker v. DC
Brady has long been claiming it only backs "reasonable" gun laws. In Parker v. DC, the DC Circuit indicated that maybe handgun registration might be OK, but total prohibition (and requiirement that guns be kept disassembled so as to be useless in self-defense) was not.
“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”
"...the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia."
Isn't one of the things that courts are supposed to do is protect the citizenry from the government?
Posted by: Joe at March 12, 2007 06:31 AM
Somebody give the Brady Bunch folks some brown paper bags to breath into so they stop hyperventilating.
"Judicial activism"??? Are they kidding? And how conveniently they refer to "nearly seventy years" of Supreme Court precedent. What about the 160 years BEFORE that?? Could it be that perhaps the last 70 years of Supreme Court "precedent" (a very dubious appellation, being that the Supreme have said precious little about 2 A in the last many decades) flies in the face of all of the history that preceded it?
Their magic "70 year" number starts with their incorrect reading of Miller as setting forth the "collective" position - which it clearly does not.
And exactly how "democratically-expressed" is the "will" of the people of D.C. when polls show time and again that plenty of D.C. residents are against the gun ban?
I could go on, but it's making me see red...
Posted by: Bill at March 12, 2007 06:22 PM
Do you suppose they would be amenable to a DC law curtailing their rights under the first? Or would they then want the federal courts to rule in opposition to DC's elected representatives?
Only morons and evil people place any credence in the Brady Campaign. NO, that is not a harsh judgment, just fact. It only seems harsh because there are so very many people we know who are not morons who support the stated goals of Brady Campaign and it is unpleasant to realize they are evil. Not mistaken, not of differing opinion, evil. Except of course, for the morons, who are actually few, but to be pitied more than castigated. At least, they are not in it for profit of any type. The same can't be said of the reasonably intelligent on that side. They are evil and intend evil.
All history bears it out.
Posted by: straightarrow at March 12, 2007 09:17 PM