[Jeff Johnson]

Here's a good article in the Weekly Standard:
We're All Gun Nuts Now - The Democrats sidle up to the Second Amendment.

It has several quotes from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, including in this snippet:

With both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination evading the gun control issue as if it were sniper fire, you couldn't blame gun control advocates for feeling bitter. Yet Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence--the pro-gun control counterweight to the National Rifle Association--says Obama and Clinton are "coming fairly close to delivering the message we'd like." On licensing and registering guns, Helmke says, they are "being realistic" in recognizing "there's no support for pushing that forward at this stage." His thoughts on the candidates' ducking questions on the D.C. gun ban? "They're politicians, and most politicians on tough calls do not answer."

The reason Helmke doesn't feel abandoned on licensing, registration, and the D.C. gun ban is that the Brady Campaign has shelved those goals, in favor of a more modest, incrementalist strategy. Though licensing and registration remain official Brady Campaign policy, Helmke says he hasn't even talked about them with anyone on staff since he became president in 2006.

In 2007, Helmke called the appeals court decision striking down the District's gun ban "judicial activism at its worst," but now he gives the impression he wouldn't mind losing the case in the Supreme Court. A loss "could be good politically for the gun control movement and these candidates," he says. "If folks know the Supreme Court's not going to allow anybody to confiscate their guns, then background checks really shouldn't be something you oppose."

Indeed, a loss could create an opening to advance what Helmke calls "middle of the road" issues. He expects both Obama and Clinton to pursue the Brady Campaign's top three legislative priorities: closing the gun show loophole, expanding access to gun trace data, and banning "assault weapons."

Like Obama and Clinton, McCain favors closing the "gun show loophole," which allows private individuals, unlike licensed gun dealers, to sell their guns without performing background checks. This has a decent chance of becoming law in the next couple of years.

I don't know if he's just trying to save face in view of recent set-backs for the gun-grabber agenda, or if he might be right that a decision by SCOTUS upholding the appeals court ruling that struck down the D.C. gun ban could actually be a launching point for other kinds of gun control.

The article is a very interesting read and gives some insight into the Obama/Clinton strategy to avoid the issue.

 

[GeneticsDave]

Sheesh, the way these guys think makes me fear for the future of humanity. :disgusted:

 

[Guest]

Helmke may have a point. While on principle many would oppose any gun control measure; if they felt confident that a "common sense" gun control measure was not nor could it be a stepping stone to greater gun control they may resist less.

Although that small silver lining is little consolation for the disaster for the gun control movement that could follow the most favorable decision by the Supreme Court.

I watched him on the Colbert report the other day. If he is the best they can muster.... well I have a new appreciation for Wayne Lapierre. He was so witless that Colbert in his satirical attack had to make Helmke's case for him because he couldn't do it himself. You know how Colbert does his thing: moronic neocon gibberish from him is supposed to be refuted effectively with intelligent arguments by his guests. The problem was no effective or intelligent counterpoint from Helmke; I think I even herd him mutter "duhhhhhh ummm guns bad stupid good Helmke smash!".

 

[mchlwise]

I don't know if he's just trying to save face in view of recent set-backs for the gun-grabber agenda, or if he might be right that a decision by SCOTUS upholding the appeals court ruling that struck down the D.C. gun ban could actually be a launching point for other kinds of gun control.

He does have an interesting perspective, and may be right. If people get complacent knowing guns can't be banned, then they won't have as much of a problem with guns being registered or controlled. :dunno:

To me, the whole gun registration issue is somewhat moot. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but with the forms we fill out to buy guns, and the forms and finger prints and pictures we have to submit to get concealed carry permits - it's not hard to figure out who has guns, they already know. It's a very small step to registering your gun, or registering yourself as a gun user.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of that in any way... but I can see that line of thinking, and can see how some might be more accepting of that kind of thing if the Supreme Court affirms our right to guns.

 

[BillK]

As far as a favorable opinion being a vehicle for more gun control, I would think it would possibly might be just the opposite. I would interpret that to mean an individuals right shall not be infringed. I certainly hope this would be the case.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

As far as a favorable opinion being a vehicle for more gun control, I would think it would possibly might be just the opposite. I would interpret that to mean an individuals right shall not be infringed. I certainly hope this would be the case.

Actually, I suspect you're right. It should open the floodgates for challenges to all sorts of unconstitutional gun laws.

 

[divegeek]

As far as a favorable opinion being a vehicle for more gun control, I would think it would possibly might be just the opposite. I would interpret that to mean an individuals right shall not be infringed. I certainly hope this would be the case.

Actually, I suspect you're right. It should open the floodgates for challenges to all sorts of unconstitutional gun laws.

I think it could also open up more examination of what the "well-regulated militia" clause means, and that should make things like "assault weapons" bans very difficult, and might even start to make some headway against the MG controls in the NFA and especially the pre-1986 limitation from the FOPA.

 

[MarshallDodge]

It's called a wolf in sheep's clothing and they just showed their hand. They will not be happy until ALL guns are taken from law abiding citizens. These people hold the belief that passing a law will protect you or posting a "gun-free zone" sign will keep the criminal element out like some kind of force-field.

They found out early in the battle that US citizens would not be happy with a huge cut in their rights so they went after what they thought was an easy target - assault rifles- and they won. Thank goodness somebody was smart enough to write a sunset clause into the bill.

Back then most of the pro-gun people and NRA members just cared about their hunting rifles or shotguns. I heard many of them say how they didn't care for the AR-15 or the AK. What kind of sporting purpose do they serve? The increasing popularity of these rifles, the rise of concealed carry, and the fact that the AWB did nothing to lower crime will make it harder to pass anymore laws. We also have people to thank like John Lott and Gary Kleck for their writing skills exposing the fact that more guns do not cause more crime.

The NRA has been calling their bluff for years, you give them an inch and they will take a mile. Today it's registration or assault rifle bans and tomorrow it will be something else they will be after. They are like termites, little nibbles at a time until your foundation has completely eroded.

 

[Tarzan1888]

:gun8: "The Democrats sidle up to the Second Amendment" :gun2:

Tarzan