"We're not a gun ban organization. "

[beevul]

"We're not a gun ban organization." - republican paul helmke - president of the brady bunch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html



Yet helmke and the brady org fought in SUPPORT of the DC gun ban:

"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which fought in support of the city's handgun ban..."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/ruling-galvanizes-pro-gun-groups-opposition/


And a brady quote that says something completely contrary to recorded history:

“We never supported handgun bans..." - Jennifer Bishop - the Brady Campaign’s national program director for victims and survivors

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/13310/



They also supporteed "assault weapons" bans, which needs no cite.

And they have said about as much about so called "50 caliber sniper rifles":


"There is no justification for allowing such a powerful and deadly weapon to be sold in our neighborhoods."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/...ons/50caliber/







Does anyone at all buy helmkes statement - "We're not a gun ban organization" ?

Has the brady bunch taken a position publicly on chicagos handgun ban? Have the submitted a "friend of the court" brief in chicago asking to strike down its ban?

Have they submitted one in support?


Just another lying republican and his cronies, to these eyes. Working to decrease gun violence is an honorable goal, but telling lies about how you have been doing it, or attempting to do it...is dishonesty at its worst.


Any one else have any other examples of this sort of dishonesty, or re-written history, from the brady bunch?

[sandnsea]

1. Local handgun bans are now constitutional

They can only be in the home and they can be required to be registered. So there you go, it's all decided now. For all practical purposes, you lost.

[beevul]

2. What does that have to do with...

What does that have to do with the lying on the part of the president of the group that claims it isn't a "gun ban" group?


Please try to stay on topic.

In response to your statements:


"Local handgun bans are now constitutional"..." For all practical purposes, you lost."

Updated 6/27: Wilmette suspends handgun ban

Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/wilmette/news/1028297,wi-handgunban-062708-s1.article

I'll take "losses" like the one above any day.

[sandnsea]

9. It's decided, you can quit belly-aching now n/t

[krispos42]

4. "Can"

Long way from "will". And from "can't be", which I believe was your goal.

[slackmaster]

5. That's not a ban, and it's not true that they can only be in the home

So there you go, it's all decided now. For all practical purposes, you lost.

What are you going to do, bleed on us?

[sandnsea]

8. That's the ban that's legal

And yes, CCW's are legal as well. So that's that. You can move on to enacting those reasonable regulations you're always going on and on about.

[slackmaster]

10. No, the ban was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NOT legal

You can move on to enacting those reasonable regulations you're always going on and on about.

We already have plenty of restrictions. What we need are sensible, reasonable changes like opening NICS up for private sales, concealed-carry permit reciprocity, etc.

[sandnsea]

14. No, gun bans that allow home protection are legal

And CCW is legal. But cities can prohibit people from certain kinds of guns, register guns, etc. I guess you don't understand what happened.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Not true

in the case of MANY states with a clause called State Pre-Emption. No city in Washington State, for example, can pass a firearms ordinance or whatever, that is more restrictive than state law.

I'm not sure if there's a national map of the states that include pre-emption. I'm curious which do and do not.

[sandnsea]

18. We're talking about federal law

Duh.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Federal law is different, that's why I said State.

For instance, Federal Registration is currently illegal.

[slackmaster]

19. You're not making any sense at all

No, gun bans that allow home protection are legal

A gun ban that allows people to own guns is not a gun ban.

And CCW is legal.

States have the power to require licenses for concealed carry. Heller didn't change that in any way.

But cities can prohibit people from certain kinds of guns, register guns, etc. I guess you don't understand what happened.

The only things Heller changed are that outright gun bans are illegal, and so is requiring that you keep guns disassembled in the home.

[sandnsea]

22. Hey, if you're happy, good on ya'

I know what keep your designated, registered, gun in your house means. You lost.

[Thortin]

26. Why do you keep saying that

That is not what the court said.
The court did not restrict guns to the home, nor did they mandate registration.

What they did do is say that people have a right to own guns.

There was no restriction on hunting, CC, or any other activity outside of the home.

I don't quite get your logic

[jody]

29. Welcome to DU and don't forget the site has a wonderful pest repellent. Just click on the icon below

because each post and - voila - pests disappear.

Have a wonderful evening, :hi:

[Thortin]

34. LOL

I don't mind the discussion :)

[sandnsea]

30. They gave cities and states the right

to restrict guns to the home and mandate registration. I don't know why you guys think you won anything. You'll soon see you didn't. But again, whatever.

[Thortin]

33. Please show me

where they said that tn the Heller decision?

[slackmaster]

36. Cities and states ALREADY HAD THE POWER (not right) to mandate registration

And DC does not restrict guns to the home.

Federal law protects the right of gun owners to travel with guns.

I don't know why you guys think you won anything.

You don't see the difference between being able to own a gun and not being able to own one?

[bossy22]

41. no they didnt

all they ruled on was that an outright ban on handguns and fully functional firearms was unconstitutional

that doesnt mean that registration wont later be found to be unconstitutional- as Scalia put- the licensing and registration scheme of the district was not challeneged in the court so they can not rule on it

[iiibbb]

48. Yes they did....

... They have essentially made it a state issue (and sometimes a locality). It means both sides got something.


I'm not sure, but I believe most states that have some form of "shall-issue" CCW, have also enacted some kind of pre-emption law that prevents localities (i.e. cities and localities) from enacting separate (i.e. more restrictive) gun-control measures.


So really, very little has changed except that you can own a gun for home defense even in places you may be restricted from having a gun in public.

[derby378]

49. I think he's trying (and failing) to own HELLER

To be fair, it will be hard to adjust to the newly clarified political reality for a while. Gun-control proponents have been going at it for some 40 years, and they're not going to fold their tents and go home overnight.

[slackmaster]

35. It's a whole lot better than "you can't own a gun at all"

:rofl:

[tburnsten]

7. Not too many states are gonna travel that road

Mine won't, many states have a constitution that specifically prohibits local regulation, regardless of what the Supreme Court "allows", and most other states are doing quite well with their concealed carry laws, so they have no real reason to change anything. What state are you from?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. How is being allowed to keep a handgun in the home a ban?

Let's see handguns were completely banned in DC and now law abiding citizens can keep them in their homes. The winners of the Heller case were the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia who now have the means to defend themselves. I will have to say though you acting like the Heller decision was a victory for you "gun grabbers" is one of the funniest things I have seen on here in a long, long time. I appreciate the good laugh.

David

[sandnsea]

15. You can be required to register it

And specific guns can be banned. Just about everything the "gun grabbers" have really wanted has been made legal. Wait and see. You have to keep your registered, pre-approved, gun in your house - unless you can prove you need a CCW which I predict will become much more difficult. Congratulations.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Sigh

Many states have must-issue CPL laws. By many, I mean more than 40. Good luck reversing those.

[sandnsea]

20. They're registrations

They won't be reversed. It will just be harder to meet the requirements. You'll have to truly prove you're in danger since the Supreme Court has said you only have a real right to a gun IN YOUR HOME. And the more people go vigilante, like that idiot woman in Texas, the more they'll restrict in adherance to the scotus ruling. We'll be back to common sense within ten years. I bet the NRA will sign on to most of it, and you won't even know it when it happens to you.

[slackmaster]

23. You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over

Federal law protects the right to transport a firearm anywhere as long as possessing it is legal at both ends of your journey. DC residents will be permitted to transport their guns to shooting ranges, other peoples' homes, states, etc.

[sandnsea]

32. Transport is not carry

And transporting a registered gun is quite aways away from the freedom to carry the NRA insisted you had.

[slackmaster]

37. Yes, transport is not carry but the fact that DC residents will be able to transport them

Blows away your contention that guns will have to be kept in the home.

Upgrading the few remaining states and DC to shall-issue for CCW permits will happen, sooner or later.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. The Supreme Court was not asked

whether people have an individual right to carry open or concealed, and they did not opine on it. If someone asks that question now, Heller will be used to confirm an individual right, so I don't think your interpretation is valid.

[bossy22]

42. Verdict: WRONG

"court has said you only have a real right to a gun IN YOUR HOME"

umm..no...the court ruled that you have a right to a functional firearm in the home- but it did not limit the right to that-

the reason the ruling only applied to the home was because that was the question that was argued in front of the court- whether a ban on handguns in the home was unconstitutional- and the court said yes...a ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. They did not pass judgement on carrying arms outside the home because that was out of the scope of the arguement presented


you are a terrible spin artist

[Spoonman]

45. Idiot woman in Texas?

Please elaborate for us.

[slackmaster]

21. The Heller decision did not make gun registration legal

It was already legal.

You have to keep your registered, pre-approved, gun in your house - unless you can prove you need a CCW which I predict will become much more difficult.

Utter nonsense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. I'm sure the residents of DC are more than happy with that, as a starting point.

I heard a lot of predictions before the Heller decision. Amazingly the people who made those predictions either haven't shown their faces in the Gun forum since the Heller decision or have registered with a different login. Interesting how there are all these new posters who just happen to be gun grabbers. I commend you on coming back after your mourning period, I really thought you would have come up with a better argument though.

David

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I don't think you fully comprehend the Heller decision

We may need another court case to run up the question of whether or not concealed or open carry is constitutionally protected, but Heller sets a precedent that makes that decision pretty likely to be 'yes it's constitutional', in my estimation. The way the question was framed to the court is as important as the decision handed back. No one asked if concealed or open carry is constitutionally protected.

So no, local handgun bans are not necessarily constitutional. Registration is another matter, looks like local registration is legal to me. Federal is not. But that's fine, technically we have that already, all the BATFE has to do is go collect the forms from all the FFL's in the state and viola, you have registration. That happens when an FFL terminates his license, or sells/closes his business anyway.

I think registration can be a good thing, if done right, but that's a separate discussion.

[SteveM]

28. Sorry, you're wrong...

Local handgun bans have yet to be tested in court, and you can rest assured they will be in NYC, SF, and Chicago, among others. The Supreme Court merely said D.C.'s ban was unconstitutional. It did not speak to the constitutionality of other bans (or even the restrictions of a "new" D.C. regulation). You can pass a law banning the public appearance of folks with red hair, and it will be law until someone challenges its constitutionality. Law does not equate to constitutionality.

For all practical purposes, we'll find out who loses.

[sandnsea]

31. Local laws will be updated

to adhere to the DC decision. There won't be anything to challenge. Yes, we'll find out.

[SteveM]

39. She has spoken!

[tburnsten]

43. You are very wrong

Most places will not change their laws to meet the strictness of D.C.s laws now, it wasn't a fear of being brought to court that prevented them from having registration schemes or anything similiar, so why would they suddenly rush to follow D.C.s flawed footsteps?

[michreject]

44. When will this update take place? nt

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boomer 50]

52. Not for long

The Heller attorneys are most likely going to petition the court for a re-hearing of the Columbus, Ohio case based on the Heller decision. This will most likely be turned down by the appeals court allowing for a petition to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS will most likely hear the case openning the door for Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment under the 14th. Once that happens, you will see the swift disembowelment of most of the gun controls laws in the United States... which is a good thing.

So, for all practical purposes, the game is afoot.

[slackmaster]

3. No, they're just a gun control advocacy organization that doesn't know where to stop

They've never met a restriction they didn't like.

[krispos42]

6. They will continue to find new causes

They have the organization and the funding and the attention; as such they will seek to survive by finding new causes to worry about.

They will not voluntarily disband. Successful organizations rarely ever do.

[old mark]

12. They are an organization in search of MONEY!

They will say anything they think is popular to get financial support.
They certainly don't want to have to get REAL jobs, do they.
They would just not be as important as they are (were).

They lie, they lie, they lie.

mark

[TPaine7]

47. Do they ever

I never thought the next lie would be so blatant.

Yes, there are millions of witnesses, so what? We didn't do it.

I have to give them credit for being so ballsy. They are counting on the ignorance of their followers, and they are probably right. Most anti-gun maniacs won't know the difference, and the minority of who remember the truth won't even care.

[jody]

27. Thanks for your thread. I've had a good laugh reading specious assertions and

outlandish prevarications from regular posters defending the Scary Brady Bunch, VPC, and other enemies of rights protected by our Constitution. :rofl:

[virginia mountainman]

40. Very Good!!

I too have been amused at all these "so called" Democrats, defending these vile Republicans, to the very end.

[Real_Talk]

46. We just play one on T.V.

[derby378]

50. According to CREDO Mobile, the Bradys are a "civil rights" organization

I kid you not...

http://www.credomobile.com/causes-list.html