Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

The Brady Campaign apparently disagrees with the Chicago Board of Education, et al.

In the upcoming McDonald v. City of Chicago case, in which the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not the Second Amendment is to be incorporated against state and local governments, numerous amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs have been filed by both sides.

The Brady Campaign's brief (pdf file) comes close to conceding defeat. Rather than arguing that the Second Amendment should not be incorporated, it merely pleads the Supreme Court to allow "reasonable" regulation. This should serve the Brady Campaign well--most observers believe that arguing against incorporation is a losing proposition. On the other hand, in Heller, we saw that SCOTUS is more than willing to uphold nearly every regulation short of an outright ban (with "reasonable" not even entering the picture)--so at the end, Helmke will be able to claim "victory." For those without the time--or patience--for the entire brief, here's the press release.

The forcible citizen disarmament advocates' other briefs are more ambitious, and actually are intended to convince SCOTUS not to incorporate the Second Amendment. Let's look at one of those briefs (pdf file), filed by the Chicago Board of Education and a whole crowd of other nanny-statists (Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence/Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, Violence Policy Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Freedom States Alliance).

At the end of that brief, they attempt to contrast the right to keep and bear arms from what they argue is the far more fundamental right of free speech.

The right to arms, even for self-defense, is fundamentally different from all other liberties retained by individuals in society because of the inherent lethality of firearms. We tolerate few restrictions on the right to free speech because of its salutary effects, and because, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,” as the nursery rhyme goes. Guns, on the other hand, will kill you.
I guess they didn't consult with the Brady Campaign in making that argument, because Brady president Paul Helmke paints a far darker picture of what free speech can do, in his "The Gun Lobby's Rhetoric Has Consequences":
In Pittsburgh on Saturday, three police officers were murdered, reportedly by an assault-weapon wielding man shooting 'hundreds of shots' who apparently believed the gun lobby propaganda that an 'Obama gun ban' would lead to his 'rights being infringed upon.'
Or maybe it's only pro-gun rights free speech that's the problem.