Helmke (of Brady) declares CHL/CCW NO PROBLEM in 48 states

[HerbM]

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, admitted and declared that concealed carry holders(CHL or CCW) are NOT A PROBLEM in 48 states:

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Thursday, June 26 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25411206/
[Paul Helmke is the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence]

...MATTHEWS: There‘s crime in the neighborhood, high crime neighborhood. What‘s wrong with having a handgun in your apartment so nobody‘s going to come in your front door?

HELMKE: Right. Court‘s basically said that that‘s going to be allowed. I mean, one of the things that Justice Scalia did, honed in on, is the right to a gun for self-defense in your own home. So that would probably be allowed under—under this reading of the 2nd Amendment. The real issue here, though, is where you draw the line. If...

MATTHEWS: OK, right to carry. Let‘s go to the tricky one. You‘re a single woman, a single male, walking home at night. You come into a—you have—you live alone in an apartment, which is in a tricky neighborhood. There are neighborhoods in Washington like that, wherever, tricky neighborhoods, where there‘s not high crime, but there‘s some crime. You don‘t feel comfortable going home late from work at night unless you got a gun in your pocket. Where are you on that?

HELMKE: Right to carry states are 48 of the 50 states right now. I mean, that‘s a battle that‘s been talked about. If there are clear restrictions...Are there clear restrictions on people and to make sure they know what they‘re doing when they get the gun, that they pass the background checks, that the local police have signed off on it, that‘s something that doesn‘t cause that many problems. The problem here is we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns. It‘s—we have too few gun laws out there. I think I‘m willing to say mission accomplished to Wayne. You guys can start doing gun training...

Aren't causing problems. That's a giant admission by Helmke, he might get drummed out of Brady for that.

But look at where he says it: 48 states. 2 of those states require only that you be legal to possess the firearm as the background check, and probably half have no "training" requirements. He has just admitted there is no need for LICENSING. His words, all of them.

This is huge. This is AS BIG as Helmke admitting before the Heller decision was released that they have lost the battle for the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

[Pinkycatcher]

I admit, I'm very surprised he didn't pull up one of the 4 or so examples nationwide of CHL holders getting in trouble, there might be some hope for him yet

[HerbM]

I admit, I'm very surprised he didn't pull up one of the 4 or so examples nationwide of CHL holders getting in trouble, there might be some hope for him yet

There is no hope for Helmke -- he is just started to realize (at least unconsciously) that he has lost a lot of battles.

He is also trying to find a small territory he can stake out to defend successfully -- both so that he can stay in business (remember LOBBYING is a business) and so he can wait for another day when these battles are forgotten to launch a new attack.

I really believe the AWB and Brady (at that particular time) were probably the very best things that could have happened for the Right to Keep and Bear Firearms.

We must never forget what we almost lost forever -- and could still lose.

[seamusTX]

I have to admit a bit of disappointment that no heads exploded.

They have always said that they don't want to take everyone's guns, or words to that effect. They will keep pushing for registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, ammo restrictions, all things that SCOUTUS has apparently given a green light to.

- Jim

[HerbM]

I have to admit a bit of disappointment that no heads exploded.

They have always said that they don't want to take everyone's guns, or words to that effect. They will keep pushing for registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, ammo restrictions, all things that SCOUTUS has apparently given a green light to.

- Jim

The Heller decision didn't green light these -- it didn't rule on them at all. There is a major difference and it is important we understand this to PUSH BACK when some gun control advocate uses this to confuse the issue.

They did say that things like barring felons would stand, but they didn't say much else definitively.

[stroo]

The difference between dicta and ruling is sometimes made too much of. No the court didn't rule on those things. But at the same time one of the most conservative justices we have wrote that no one should have any doubts that restrictions like these would be okay. Is it a ruling? No. But it is worrisome nonetheless because it point to where the most conservative justices are at.

[bpet]

Mr. Helmke is obviously a gracious and generous looser as evidenced by his concession (sort of) to being able to have a gun in your home (note emphasis added by me)...

"HELMKE: Right. Court‘s basically said that that‘s going to be allowed. I mean, one of the things that Justice Scalia did, honed in on, is the right to a gun for self-defense in your own home. So that would probably be allowed under—under this reading of the 2nd Amendment."

I guess "probably be allowed" is as close as we're gonna get to an agreement that you can and should be able to have a loaded firearm (even a handgun) in your home - but beware, he's only saying it can be used for self-defense. I wonder if it will be ok to clean it once in a while. The poor citizens of DC still need to figure out how to get it from the store to their home without being arrested.

[agbullet2k1]

I wonder how long until the other side claims this quote never happened, and that it was taken completely out of context, and that he really meant the exact opposite of everything he said, because it was opposite day.

I'm happy the Brady folks exist. We're very lucky to have an opposing group that likes to shoot themselves in the foot....if they could shoot, that is. All it took for my wife to change her stance on guns was a visit to the Brady site. She really thought it was a joke. Took the Wikipedia article to convince her they were for real.

[HerbM]

The difference between dicta and ruling is sometimes made too much of. No the court didn't rule on those things. But at the same time one of the most conservative justices we have wrote that no one should have any doubts that restrictions like these would be okay. Is it a ruling? No. But it is worrisome nonetheless because it point to where the most conservative justices are at.

He didn't say that either.

And it was in the majority opinion where it is not mere dicta that he referred to them. They were left almost entirely ambiguous.

Felon and insane prohibitions will stand. No bazookas or nuclear weapons.

Really, he didn't say what you think he said. Don't believe it and don't let the anti-gun crowd sell it to you or your friends.

[seamusTX]

Upon reflection, I agree with you. Heller did not ask to have registration declared unconstitutional, so SCOTUS did not rule on that issue.

- Jim

[agbullet2k1]

Upon reflection, I agree with you. Heller did not ask to have registration declared unconstitutional, so SCOTUS did not rule on that issue.

- Jim

Exactly. Heller specifically said that he didn't have a problem with the registration as long as it was fair, so he essentially made it a non issue. Kudos to the judges for practicing judicial restraint, even if it does sting a bit. I'd actually rather see a lot of individual cases than one big one. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, and risk being Kennedied.

[stroo]

From the Opinion:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited…. Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.)"

No the conservative majority didn't rule on the listed items, but they did identify them as "presumptively lawful regulatory measures". And they stated that they are only "examples". That list "does not purport to be exhaustive." Given this dicta by Justice Scalia plus the Court's acceptance of the licensing requirement (again dicta), it is entirely reasonable to think that the conservatives would also find limits on magazine capacity, registration, waiting periods, etc to be reasonable restrictions. And you know that the four liberal justices would buy into those restrictions. So while this is a victory, it leads plenty of room for the Brady bunch to obtain and defend all sorts of "reasonable restrictions" aka infringements on the right to bear arms.

By the way, I don't let anyone sell me anything, Brady bunch or NRA.

[DParker]

No the conservative majority didn't rule on the listed items, but they did identify them as "presumptively lawful regulatory measures".

Note the qualifier "presumptively". Since the restrictions in question were not at issue and, as you note, not being ruled on...they are presumed to be lawful. That in no way means that Scalia is saying that they would stand up to direct challenge. He seems to me to be simply making plain to the reader the narrow scope of the decision (specifically, the DC laws in question), not making any sort of determination regarding what the court would find acceptable where other challenges brought before it.

[HerbM]

You (all) have it right now.

And remember, we must no allow anyone to get away with the mistake (or lie) that "reasonable" gun laws means anything whith merely "sounds reasonable", even if they sound reasonable to us.

Reasonable means providing a PROVABLE solution to a COMPELLING state interest in the LEAST obtrusive and narrowest manner available.

It does not mean what sounds reasonable on a bumper sticker nor a web banner.

[stroo]

Nope. Scalia is telling the gun grabbers that they don't need to worry about this ruling going to far! He doesn't have to have this section in his opinion since it is entirely irrelevant to the issues before him. He put it in to signal how far or how limited this ruling really is.

Again this is a victory but it is not as much of a victory as many of you believe nor is it as much of a loss as many gun grabbers seem to think. It will probably hit Chicago and maybe Hawaii and San Francisco. Beyond that, I read this as the high water mark.