General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you support the Brady Campaign's Idea of “Reasonable,” “Common Sense,” “Sensible” Gun Control?
As discussed here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022033393 ), there is a lot of talk by good and decent people about reasonable, common sense, sensible gun control. The Brady Campaign, powerful politicians, leaders and anti-gun scholars have also used these terms, but they havent always meant what you might think.
I cant tell you exactly what the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers mean by these terms, but I can get close.
As the Parker case (the case that became the Heller case) was working its way through the courts, I went to the Brady Campaign website to see how the District of Columbia was rated.
The Brady Campaign maintained a grading system somewhat like the NRAs. DC had a higher rating than any state in the union. DCs grade was in the B range; if I recall correctly, the exact grade was a B- .
In other words, the Districts gun control, though not flawless enough to get an A was close.
And what was close to perfect? Here are descriptions of the laws, as outlined in an open letter I wrote to Obama at the time (these laws were overturned by Heller):
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.
Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.
Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the best in the nation gun control regime that got a B- rating from the Brady Campaign:
You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.
It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your familyor repel a rapist or avoid deathwould not do.
These were the laws regarding long gunsrifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.
You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)
Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.
If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?
When I hear terms like reasonable common sense and sensible coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign and the like, I know what they really mean. And now, so do you.
If Heller had gone the other way, this is the type of gun control that the Brady Campaign (and the politician and leaders who supported them) wanted to move this country towards. It valued defense of money and property over family and self and criminalized defense of self and family with a gun in one's home.
What do you think?
4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
The Brady Campaign is right. DC's laws were not strict enough to deserve an "A." (Please explain how to fix them below.) | |
2 (50%) |
|
I disagree with the Brady Campaign; DC's laws seem just right to me. | |
0 (0%) |
|
I disagree with the Brady Campaign; DC's laws were too strict in some ways and too lenient in others. (Please explain.) | |
0 (0%) |
|
I disagree with the Brady Campaign; DC's laws were too strict. | |
2 (50%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)due to hysteria and illogic.
Some things do need to be done to prevent mass shootings, but hopefully, the Brady Campaign will never get their dream.