“It is critical that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent the rampant carrying of guns in public places. It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public.” – The Brady Center’s Jonathan Lowy in Gun rights debate returns to Washington courtroom [via cnn.com]
BLOOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously though, that’s what he’ll promise. In the end he’s honest it’s about control I guess.
They do keep screaming that and yet it seems like its the same criminal element (impoverished 15-30 year olds, and/or terrorists) that is actually doing the shooting and bleeding, not the regular 9-5’er just living his/her life.
Law enforcement does not have the “authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public.” That is the province of the legislature. Whether those regulations in any given instance pass constitutional muster is another issue.
Yep. Law enforcement has the authority to…enforce the law. Not a difficult concept.
The “authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public” is not even the province of the legislature.
The Second Amendment immediately takes that off of the table for any legislature.
First of all, there is no language in the Second Amendment which says it only applies to the federal government. Combined with the Tenth Amendment, the Second Amendment also prohibits the states from infringements.
Second of all, there is no language in the Second Amendment which allows for “reasonable” restrictions or regulations. The Fourth Amendment allows for “reasonable” government searches and seizures. The Second Amendment does NOT allow for “reasonable” government infringements.
I spell these out because they are so absolutely clear and there is no question whatsoever about the constitutionality of gun-control laws: they are all unequivocally unconstitutional. Every judge in every court — all the way up to and including the United States Supreme Court — knows this. They rule otherwise to serve themselves and/or their masters, not because their is any ambiguity.
100%
These people are so delusional. How can anyone call themselves American while stepping all over the Constitution?
Well stated, not much to add. Thanks for the erudite extolling of the clear meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Beyond that, I believe it was the 14th Amendment that affirmed that the Bill of Rights applied to the states so since then ‘shall not be infringed’ applies regardless of original intent.
The problem with a constitution is that it can only be as strong as the ruling class’s willingness to abide by it and the people’s will to defend it.
Yup.
Well done, u_s. Well done.
Actually, all of the amendments originally applied only to the federal government. Application to the states is called “incorporation” and that was debated and rejected by the Framers. The Supreme Court, however, has sought to incorporate the bill of rights one by one since the 19th century. To date, not all have been incorporated.
Now, many people mistakenly believe that the 14th amendment automatically incorporates all amendments. That’s just not so, as the existence of major SC cases addressing that question demonstrates. In fact, the 2A itself was only incorporated with the McDonald v. Chicago case in 2010. That’s basically five minutes ago in constitutional law terms.
“Now, many people mistakenly believe that the 14th amendment automatically incorporates all amendments.”
Including the guy who wrote it. Unfortunately, he had his efforts later “interpreted away” by black-robed statists, who forced the re-incorporation of every one of those rights through a 150-year-long game of “Mother, May I” (which is still in process).
“Actually, all of the amendments originally applied only to the federal government. Application to the states is called ‘incorporation’ and that was debated and rejected by the Framers.”
So, the Framers, who were justifiably paranoid about tyrannical governments having just experienced one and overthrown it, codified all sorts of protections for We the People … but those protections only applied to the federal government and the Framers failed to provide any protections from tyrannical state or local governments?
That means, unless some federal court declares otherwise, that it is proper, legitimate, and legal for a state to:
— Compel me to testify against myself
— Search and seize my property for no reason
— Take my land for public use without compensation
— Imprison me for practicing the wrong religion
— Imprison me for holding a sign in front of the state capital
— Arrest me for an alleged crime without any evidence or witnesses
— Prosecute me for an alleged crime without evidence or witnesses
— Refuse to compel witnesses to testify at my trial
— Sentence me to 20 years in prison for bumping into someone without malice
— Try me for the same offense as many times as it takes to convict me
— Prohibit ownership of any or all firearms
— Prohibit possession of any or all firearms
That would absolutely be the greatest oversight in all recorded history.
What uncommon_sense said. However my first response was to give the Brady Center a hearty hi-ho F### you.
It’s Jonathan Lowy. I wouldn’t have expected anything more.
“It is critical that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent the rampant carrying of guns in public places.” – The Brady Center’s Jonathan Lowy
This is “critical” for two reasons:
(1) If the working class is well armed and able to handle “social work” on their own, the ruling class cannot justify a giant militarized police force … which the ruling class needs to exploit the working class with impunity.
(2) Even if the ruling class can justify and install a giant militarized police force, they are nevertheless afraid that they cannot exploit the working class with impunity when the working class is well armed.
The ruling class is not a handful of elites, they are mindless bureaucrats uninterested in power, only live to move paper from one box to another.
The idea that Legislators believe criminals would abide by laws shows how ignorant they become and why the people need to hold them accountable. It’s unconscionable that legislators make laws to prevent lawful self protection and leave their constituents at the mercy of criminals.
“The ruling class is not a handful of elites, they are mindless bureaucrats”–Negative.
I Agree! We the People are being lied to…Government can NOT regulate Civil rights. This is the Danger that others have warned about for years regarding rampant out of control big government. The government, it’s agencies, states, and it’s law enforcement are no longer afraid of the citizenry and are systematically restricting, prohibiting, banning civil liberties under penalty of arrest through force of arms…Didn’t the colonies go through this not too long ago….
Not surprsingly, Jonathan Lowy was a ‘civil rights and personal injury (ambulance chaser) lawyer before he started working at the Brady cartel. He’s also taught ‘creative writing’ at GWU. I called this latest piece a fine example of such writing. Another liberal, another lie. And another attack on our civil rights.
I am sure that criminals will follow the law when carrying guns in public is illegal….
Oh wait…
What a racist!
We the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that shall not be infringed upon especially by police officers who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution with their lives. Ask any police officer if their job is to protect the citizens in their Community they will clearly tell you it is physically impossible for us to protect everyone in our county or city. There’s just not enough manpower. That means it’s up to each individual to protect themselves from being a statistic. If you look at the Center for Disease control’s statistics you will clearly realize that people that are killed by Firearms every year is a minut amount. If you look at their statistics at the CDC 4 drownings in swimming pools lakes rivers and oceans and car accidents the numbers aren’t even close. And let’s not forget cigarette smoking which is the big pink elephant in the room that nobody seems to address because our politicians are in the pockets of these huge private corporations and they give millions of dollars to back their campaigns and then when something comes up that will limit their ability to sell these products such as alcohol and tobacco our politicians can’t say a word because then they call in their favor for their contribution to their campaign. And just so you know I’m a cigarette smoker myself so don’t get on me about that. Guns do not kill people people kill people if they don’t have a gun though you something else the CDC has a list death and how they occur on their website number one is bludgeoning by a heavy object such as a baseball bat or a club. The Brady campaign has been talking this nonsense since mr. Brady got shot with Ronald Reagan back in I believe the eighties and they’re still preaching these lies and bull crap come on get a life.
How do you regulate something that is hidden from view?
Is the author calling for an end to the 4th amendment?
It worked for Rudy.
Do they bother to teach the constitution, roles of government and why separation of powers is important in law school anymore? I know they’ve given that up in the public schools in favor of teaching social justice and activism, but seriously. I’d simply say this guy is an ass clown, but I find his suggestion more than a little chilling.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Lowy.
If it weren’t for “hidden handguns”, that poor Somali man wouldn’t have been heartlessly slaughtered while innocently showing shoppers his new Ginsu knife…
Maybe I’m just late to the party, but I’ve noticed a growing trend in the progressive crowd being up front in their desire to see America become a one-party nation, politically and culturally. Thoughts and actions are only virtuous, or even remotely “good,” if the person involved belongs to the hivemind. I bet this Lowy character wouldn’t qualify a gay man or black single mother as one of those “rampant” concealed carriers that rustle his jimmies so much. It’s not all that different from a religious cult, honestly, with their obsession in maintaining “purity” across the board. And much like Victorian England, the loudest supporters of the SJW insurgency are young, spoiled, middle-class white folks.
The battle for liberty is never ending. The progressive fascist will never stop trying to take your freedom away.
The Brady Center is not trying to help people. They are an evil group of white leaders who have private armed guards.
Don’t let the high-paid blindfolded shut-ins determine or set public policy.
I intend to exercise my rights as a “Rampantly Carrying Deplorable”. Just on principal alone.
Would you have expected anything less from the Brady Center?
That’s the thing about lawyers.
They still get paid, even when absolutely ignorant statements come out of their mouths.
Well, I guess it’s the same for politicians.
Since when has Law Enforcments had the authority to prevent the carrying of guns in public places, rampant or otherwise? And, from whence it came?
Time to play my favorite game! Switch-The-Nouns! Starring todays guest, The Brady Center’s Jonathan Lowy!
Lets’ play, shall we.
It is critical that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent the Blacks in public places. It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the colored folk in public.”
Too much? Lets try this one…
It is critical that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent Jews from public places. It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the Jews and where they can go in public.”
Still too much? Lets try one more….
It is critical that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent women from voting. It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the woman and the ballot box.”
That makes Three Strikes Mr Lowy. That means that you are, in fact, a bigot and a racist who thinks yourself superior to your fellow man. And that means we can add arrogant prat to the list of your qualities.
Tune in next week! And now a word from our commercial sponsors….
(cue theme music, roll credits)
That makes literally no sense.The stupid is figuratively painful.
“…It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public.”
All other concerns aside for a second, how does one regulate something one doesn’t know of? If the gun is truly hidden from view, it can’t be regulated because the cops don’t know it’s there.
Well, the point of this kind of “agument” is the presuppositions buried in it.
The “argument” makes no sense as a bunch of folks have pointed out: “… that law enforcement maintain its longstanding authority to prevent the rampant carrying of guns in public places.”
– Law enforcement never had that authority.
– Legislature never had that authority.
– The general “… carrying of guns in public places.” was never prohibited. The general prohibition was never legal, and the limited prohibition was never effective, when tried.
– And in case anybody didn’t get that, there’s been a parade of court cases reeling back general bans on citizens carrying guns. ‘Hey, guys, too far.”
They can’t win in the legislatures (hello, veto override), through administrative fiat, in the courts, or even in the court of public opinion. So, they’ll “win” by pretending they did. That pries off the people who disagree, but will let the nonsense slide rather than challenge it, which may be enough to tip an election or three.
The point is the presuppositions. They don’t have to believe them. They just say this stuff to convince a few folks that it is so.
“…It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public.”
Well, the courts have been finding legislative, regulatory, and law enforcement overreach quite a bit, lately, so saying “no” is no “shift”, “radical” or otherwise. Law Enforcement is not a regulatory body, either. They have no authority to regulate anything. (And should probably stop trying.)
Interestingly, the laws, regulations, and Law Enforcement policies struck down, say in DC, have been killed for being “unreasonable.” Unreasonable restrictions, by organizations with no standing to do so, with no factual basis, or both. So much for “reasonable.”
Maybe that’s because if somebody can be trusted to carry a gun, what’s the difference whether it’s concealed? While somebody who cannot be trusted to carry a gun, what are they doing running around loose in the first place?
I do want to ask Mr. Lowy: “Since when does “law enforcement” get to make on its own regulations governing peaceful citizens doing something legal, harming no one?m Simply because they, think something is ‘reasonable?'”
“Since when is the burden of proof on the people who grant authority, not the people who want it, and the people who say some regulation makes no sense, vs. the people who say it’s ‘reasonable?'”
That’s extraordinary.
” extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate”
And here I thought legislators did that. Who knew that law enforcement wrote the laws /sarc
Throughout the history of the nation, I can only recall one town in which law enforcement restricted the carry of firearms.
Tombstone, AZ, and Wyatt Earp was the lawman. There may have been others, but they were few and far between. It was not until modern times when population centers sought to restrict the carry of firearms. In Earp’s case he made an arbitrary rule, and coerced the council to agree to it.
The main reason such restrictions were rare was that the vast majority of the people saw the 2nd Amendment in the same as it was ratified. It was ratified by individual state legislatures which also saw it in the same light when they ratified the Constitution after the authors, James Madison and George Mason, appeared before the legislatures to explain the word and intent to their satisfaction.
“Rampant’ and “Carrying”, though not mutually exclusive, sound silly when put together, like “Vicious” and “Hugs”.
What about “Rampant” and “stupidity” or “rampant” and “liberal” or “rampant” and “bull-stuff”, hehehehe.
rampant trump, hmmmmmmm has a ring to it, sort of a campaign slogan. Don’t ya think?
Or Rampant Cankles, Rampant Intent, THAT’S a keeper, or Rampant Emails?
“It would be an extraordinary and radical shift for a court to find that law enforcement has no authority to reasonably regulate the carrying of hidden handguns in public.”
Law enforcement doesn’t even have the ability to do this, unless they’ve got metal detectors and portable body scanners and x-ray specs, and repeal that pesky 4th amendment. Hidden handguns are hidden.
What would Black Lies Matter think about Lowy’s statement?
Comments are closed.