Bryan Miller - At It Again

In his latest offering, Bryan Miller "takes a flier" and offers up his views on the upcoming Heller decision.

I'm no Supreme Court buff, nor am I a lawyer, so I'm slightly reluctant to handicap the ruling. On the other hand, what are opinion blogs for, if not to take a flyer from time to time?

Bryan you've been taking a "flyer" since you started that blog of yours. Your subsequent statements bear that out:

the court is likely to go completely against long-standing and repetitive precedent (so much for Roberts' and Alito's assurances during their confirmations) and find that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense.

You should have linked that bit. Of course, you'd most likely link to Miller, which would not bear out your statement, so I understand why you didn't.

(despite the fact that the amendment makes no mention of self-defense, focusing instead on "a well regulated Militia...")

No, the amendment focuses on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't you know that? Maybe you need English Lessons.

...the court is likely to state that firearms possession is subject to reasonable regulation by federal, state and local authorities

Know what? I'd consider such a ruling a victory for public safety, for common sense and for the gun violence prevention community. Why? It would remove the debate about guns and gun violence from the static and useless 2nd amendment arena and put it squarely in the 'reasonableness' arena, unencumbered by the 2nd amendment argument that the gun industy and lobby and chicken-hearted legislators and pols hide behind.

Static an useless to you, obviously, but our Constitution is neither.

I'm totally comfortable placing debates and decisions about gun legislation and
laws in that arena, where the issue of public safety will be supreme.

You're totally comfortable putting the debate in an arena of your own making, one that excludes any sort of God-given rights, and focuses soley on your anti-gun agenda. There, that's a better way to say it.

For instance, how is it unreasonable to limit purchasers to 13 handguns per year, in order to dramatically diminish the illegal trafficking of handguns that fuels the criminal market?

It's unreasonable for a number of reasons, one being it won't "dramatically diminish the illegal trafficking of handguns". It will just put more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners/collectors/enthusiasts. It's also unreasonable to put numbers like that in place because once they are there, it's easy to modify those numbers in the spirit of being "reasonable".

Or, how is it unreasonable to require that all firearms purchases, including at gun shows, be accompanied by an effective background check, to ensure that criminals cannot buy guns free and clear?

Because doing this would require a background check on person-to-person sales. I'm sure that's "reasonable" to you as well, but it would be impossible to enforce. Unless, of course, you establish a way of verifying which guns belong to which person. But that would require a registry, which is illegal in this country.

Or, how is it unreasonable to prohibit civilians from purchasing military weapons made to destroy material targets like passenger aircraft, refineries, chem plants and rail tank cars from long distance?

Unless I'm mistaken, it is illegal to purchase an AT-4 or similar munition, which is what it would take to wreak such havoc.

Oh, you're talking about .50 caliber rifles? Read this. I really wonder how you people can say these things. My dad manned quad 50's during the Korean War. Even with four of them, on a manuverable platform, firing in fully automatic mode, jets were hard to bring down.

The gun violence prevention community wins the reasonableness test on these and other measures.

See Bryan? This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" You haven't passed a test yet, nor will you ever. You argue your postion with lies and exaggeration. You are countered with facts. Then you say "See? I won!".

No, you didn't.

That kid's something, ain't he?