Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, predicts the Supreme Court ruling will "embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists."
Posted on 06/27/2008 7:51:17 AM PDT by Zakeet
Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District's gun ban, leaders of the National Rifle Association began work on legal challenges against gun restrictions in Chicago and San Francisco, while gun-control groups said the decision would only strengthen their efforts.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which fought in support of the city's handgun ban, predicted that the decision would "embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws."
"With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety," he said.
The NRA and Gun Owners of America both say they're planning to use the ruling as a springboard to challenge state and local laws across the country.
"Certainly things like the Chicago handgun ban, which is very similar to what Washington, D.C., had, those are the kind of things we would want to look at," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America. "We're definitely going to be in the middle of all of that."
Mr. Pratt also noted comments by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that the decision "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."
"When Justice Breyer is sad, we're happy," Mr. Pratt said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, predicts the Supreme Court ruling will "embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Why should we even have to fight these other cities gun laws? They should be immediately rendered moot by this decision.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety,”
Bold words from a statist who just had his ideological A$$ handed to him by SCOTUS!
I hope this forces the left to throw resources into losing battles.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Translation:
We will use any news, any tragedy, to get you to send us more money.
I’d rather see them drilling this dry well than trying to give our enemies more rights.
Heller was based on a federal, not state issue. We need to force incorporation. I hope this happens sooner rather than later, especially before the court makeup changes.
Well, if they were smart they wouldn’t fight us. After all, we got the guns. Then again, we know they are not too smart.
Heller said it best with asking why can’t he defend his life.
Here’s one “idealogical extremist” that stands against Helmke.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This is a point that I have made several times. Supreme court rulings and even the cases they have elected to hear have drifted away from the original intent stated in the constitution of the Judicial Branch and Supreme Court.
Abortion was allowed to be heard in front of the Supreme Court by way of "Privacy Rights" protected by the constitution. The Supreme court should not have even heard the case on the grounds that privacy was not the issue. The court should have said, "We have no authority here. It is a matter for the legislative or executive branch to handle by way of laws or a Constitutional Amendment." The laws would have continued to be written state by state, as they previously were and should be today.
This was a case that should not have had to go to the Supreme Court, but it is, never-the-less a case that the supreme court was intended to rule on. It was directly challenging the interpretation of the constitution, regardless of how insanely obvious it should be.
“Heller was based on a federal, not state issue”.
I know what you are saying but dosn’t this trump state issues?
I agree. But you will first have to get a judge to declare the law unconstitutional in a court of law. Some extremist judges will simply refuse to accept Heller and will have to be slapped down at the appellate level.
Which leads me to ask; If Roe v Wade did not apply only to Texas, why do you think District of Columbia v. Heller would apply only to D.C.?
Well, Texas is a state, so once it applied there it applies to all states. DC isn’t a state, so it doesn’t apply ot other states.
If the Court strikes the Chicago ban, for example, then the ruling would apply to all 50 states, just like Roe,
From the opinion, and the makeup of the Justices, it’s pretty clear that they wil apply it to the states when the case presents itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.