{"id":906,"date":"2010-02-27T12:47:50","date_gmt":"2010-02-27T17:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=906"},"modified":"2010-02-27T12:47:50","modified_gmt":"2010-02-27T17:47:50","slug":"winning-by-losing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=906","title":{"rendered":"Winning by losing"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to AP writer Mark Sherman, the antis can win by losing. \u00a0From his op-ed, “Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control<\/a>“:<\/p>\n

“Gun control advocates are hoping they can win by losing when the Supreme Court<\/a> rules on state and local regulation of firearms. \u00a0The justices will be deciding whether the right to possess guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment<\/a> – like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights<\/a> – applies to states as well as the federal government. It’s widely believed they will say it does …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sherman can’t be serious. \u00a0The core issue for all antigun groups is their desire for nothing short of a total<\/span> prohibition on private firearms ownership.<\/p>\n

“… But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence<\/a> is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments “from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence.” …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And by “reasonable laws”<\/em> they mean a total ban. \u00a0That is why the Brady’s defended Washington D.C.’s total ban on handgun ownership and functional long gun ownership. \u00a0Incorporation takes prohibition off the table. \u00a0Yet, somehow the antis will come out ahead?<\/p>\n

Recognizing their primary reason for being is going away, what have the the Brady’s been all hot and heavy about for the past month? \u00a0So-called “assault weapons”? \u00a0Microstamping? \u00a0Nope. \u00a0They’re attacking Starbucks for allowing open carry<\/a> in their shops. \u00a0It’s not going well<\/a> for them either. \u00a0Is this the behavior of winners? \u00a0I think not.<\/p>\n