If the Brady Bunch supports Sotomayor, America should not

I saw today, without surprise, that the Brady Campaign is happy about the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be a positive one for those committed to reducing gun violence in this country. Judge Sotomayor’s legal opinions have shown a strong respect for precedent in upholding federal and state gun laws, while her background and experience promise to bring a real world, personal understanding of the effects of gun violence that will be welcome on our nation’s highest Court.

Hmm--"a real world, personal understanding of the effects of gun violence"--I guess that's the kind of "empathy" that now apparently trumps adherence to the Constitution.

Respect for precedent and understanding the importance of strong gun laws in the real world will be especially
important . . .

In two consecutive sentences, Helmke praises Sotomayor's "respect for precedent." No mention of the merest possibility that the "precedent" might be wrong--if a draconian gun law has been upheld in the past, it should always be upheld. Hey--speaking of precedent, there seems to be vastly more precedent for tossing lawsuits against gun manufacturers out of court, for lack of merit, than there is for allowing such suits to proceed. Don't you just love precedent, Paul?

He must, because he brings it up again, to start the next paragraph.

As a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor has shown a respect for precedent that has narrowly interpreted the Second Amendment . . .

Ah yes--"respect for [the] precedent" of counting 10% of the Bill of Rights as largely meaningless.

. . . a far contrast to the activist majority in the Heller case, which sidestepped seventy year old precedent in finding a new individual right to have handguns in the home.

Now wait a second, Paul--I thought you liked the Heller decision.

Now that the Court has struck down the District's ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this 'slippery slope' argument is gone.

And . . .

The "slippery slope," however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table Thursday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from "taking away" the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a "first step on the road to gun confiscation."

While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District's ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." When the dust settles, most Americans -- and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement -- will come to see that there are some positives in this decision.

Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can't hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.

And . . .

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, it's been my hope that it might be easier to find some common ground on steps to help reduce gun violence in this country now that the extremes of the gun control debate (gun confiscation on the one hand and the absolutist "any person, any place, any gun" on the other hand) have been rejected by the Court.

Make up your mind, Paul.