Category: Guns

From Jacob, up in New York, talks about how a former President of the Brady Campaign seems to have learned a thing or two about how the “gun lobby” does things:

Far too many gunnies spend their time trying to be right, whether it’s compiling facts about private gun ownership and crime or digging up quotes from the Founding Fathers, and not nearly enough time on how to actually implement their ideas.  Anyone who has ever seen the floor debates on gun bills in Albany knows that a rational discussion on the facts never comes up from the other side.  Why worry about it then?  There is nothing wrong with simply telling a legislator to vote your way or else you will work against them next election cycle.

This is to a large degree true, but more  now that the philosophical ground work on the issue has largely been validated by the Supreme Court. I don’t think, however, you can completely ignore the philosophical roots of the issue, because that is the primary means you can use to persuade some people to your side and motivate them. That doesn’t work with everyone, however, and most politicians don’t really give a crap about your issue (whatever your issue is). They have a lot of competing interests to balance. If you want them to pay attention to you, the dynamic duo of votes and money works every time.

That’s not to say there aren’t true believers. But those are rare birds. Most politicians are true believers in areas where they have a specific self-interest. A shooter Congress Critter might have a heartfelt interest in protecting gun rights, a doctor critter might have strong feelings on health care, etc. But for the most part you’re going to be using the carrot and the stick when dealing with elected official more than facts, figures and persuasion.

Nordyke v. King is shaping up to be the next big case, I think, and the ducks are getting lined up in a row. Nordyke is the case where Alameda County banned gun shows from its fairgrounds. The Court is considering whether or not this is a violation of the Second Amendment. I’m rather pleased that this may be the next big case, because the win or lose isn’t nearly as important as what the Court is going to say. We could lose on the merits, and still win.

Both many groups have filed briefs in this case (NRA’s can be found here), arguing that the standard for reviewing Second Amendment claims is strict scrutiny. This would seem (to me at least) to be a good context for arguing that. You don’t have criminal prohibitions complicating the matter, like we did in the Skoien case in the 7th Circuit. It’s pretty clear that Alameda County banned gun shows because they don’t like them, rather than because of any legitimate government interest. That’s why this is important.

This case, win or lose, could end up defining the boundaries of the Second Amendment, most certainly for the Ninth Circuit, which includes a number of states, but also for the entire country, as other circuits adopt their reasoning.