{"id":331,"date":"2009-10-13T15:05:09","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T19:05:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=331"},"modified":"2009-10-13T15:05:09","modified_gmt":"2009-10-13T19:05:09","slug":"helmke-not-a-good-liar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=331","title":{"rendered":"Helmke not a good liar"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brady Bunch President Paul Helmke<\/a> on SCOTUS<\/a> incorporating the 2nd Amendment<\/a> from the Dallas Morning News<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“It’s not that worrisome.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh, yes it is for them. \u00a0New York gun law is based entirely upon the notion that there is no RKBA and the state can do whatever it pleases. \u00a0Incorporation by SCOTUS would open up all sorts of new legal challenges here and elseware and Helmke knows it. \u00a0So does Mayor Bloomberg<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For example, the Sullivan Law<\/a>. \u00a0If gun ownership is a right, how can the state require a license even for simple possession? \u00a0If somehow licensing itself can be justified, how can it be discretionary? \u00a0If you can keep a gun in the home for personal protection, then why can you not carry with you for the same reason? \u00a0It’s not like freedom of religion only applies when you’re in church. \u00a0Is it reasonable for the state deny a right to non-residents? \u00a0That’s certainly not the case for freedom of speech.<\/p>\n

What I would like to see come out of the Chicago gun case<\/a> is something that says laws pertaining to the 2nd Amendment must be held to the same standards of strict scrutiny<\/a> as the rest of the Bill of Rights<\/a>. \u00a0That would be the best for future legal challenges.<\/p>\n