Gun-control lobby in retreat

Josey1

Gun-control lobby in retreatBy Sterling BurnettThe spin doctors working for anti-gun lobbyists shifted into overdrive recently -- trying to portray a resounding legal setback for their agenda as a victory. Last October, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in U.S. v. Emerson that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to "possess and bear their own firearms ... that are suitable as personal, individual weapons."This finding is not earthshaking to most people. Public opinion polls consistently show that most Americans believe that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed individual right.In addition, the vast majority of the peer-reviewed articles in law reviews and political science journals have long held that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to "keep and bear arms." Among academics, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment is popularly known as the "standard view."Indeed, this ruling will surprise only gun-control lobbyists and their allies on Capitol Hill and in various state legislatures. They have long argued that the Second Amendment only protects the right of states to form and arm militias.The Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), the Violence Policy Center and other gun-control groups portray the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment as a myth.VPC, for example, has stated that the "purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened."In a careful, detailed and persuasive analysis, the 5th Circuit Court exposed the "states militia" view as the real myth.Gun-control advocates were already in retreat when the 5th Circuit ruled. Recent studies have demonstrated that the gun-control policies, which advocates lobbied for, had not reduced crime.In addition, gun-control groups suffered a series of judicial defeats in their attempts to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal misuses of firearms. Finally, the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings made it clearer than ever before that guns don't cause crime, evil people with malicious intent do -- which is what opponents of gun control have argued all along. Trying to snatch a glimmer of hope from the Emerson decision, gun-control groups have touted the fact that the 5th Circuit reversed the lower court and held that being under a restraining order was sufficient ground for overriding a person's right to own guns.Gun-control groups argue that this is a victory for gun control, because it rejects the "gun lobby's" argument that the Second Amendment guarantees criminals and domestic abusers the right to keep and bear arms.This is a straw man argument. No right is absolute. You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater in the pursuit of free speech, or to practice human sacrifices in the pursuit of religious freedom.And, if you've committed a felony, you can't own guns. Neither the National Rifle Association, nor any other pro-gun group of which I am aware rejects this view. Rather, they often support increasing the prosecution of felons who possess guns illegally.If the Emerson decision is a victory for gun control, then it is a Pyrrhic victory -- coming at a high cost. Those who wish to pass further gun-control laws will have the burden of showing that their proposals do not violate people's right to own guns. This precedent will be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of gun rights advocates.H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ed090144.html

offeror

In other words, the gun control fanatics had been rationalizing their argument for so long, they were starting to believe it themselves -- hence their shock when the courts show common sense. As for the rest, I find it so ludicrous that they accuse the gun lobby of supporting gun rights of criminals that I can't even get angry at the accusation. A couple of weeks ago, I had a Glock 23 advertised for sale. I got a call from a guy who said he had my money, and could I deliver the gun. I said, no, I don't believe so. He said, well, I'm under house arrest so I can't leave. I replied that I would not be selling my gun to anyone under house arrest, and hung up. The most amazing thing about this call, other than the fact that he didn't even know what .40 caliber was, was the fact that he was dumb enough to TELL me he was under house arrest. I later called the county corrections office and reported his attempt to purchase a weapon, via the information he inadvertently left me on my Caller I.D. If the gun controllers are reduced to claiming that we support the gun rights of wife beaters, they are getting delusionally desperate.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."