Liberals and the NRA find common cause? ...

[spin]

Gun Rally

Liberals and the NRA have found common cause in a pending supreme court case.



When the constitutional accountability Center launched in 2008, it looked like just another liberal legal-advocacy group, dedicated to "fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history." The causes it has backed run the standard liberal gamut: among other things, the group supports California's efforts to regulate carbon emissions and pushes for "robust due-process protections for immigrant criminal defendants." So if you were told that the CAC had filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about gun control to be argued before the Supreme Court this week, you might think it was siding with Chicago, whose restrictions on gun ownership are being challenged.

You would be wrong. For decades, liberals have opposed gun rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the establishment of state militias. But some liberal dissenters from this view now say that is too narrow a reading of the Constitution. They contend that it fails to take into account the historical record and contradicts liberals' own reading of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.

****snip****

The CAC's main concern in weighing in on the McDonald case isn't to secure gun rights but to set a precedent that will expand individuals' protection under the Bill of Rights to the state level. That would, they hope, bolster liberal constitutional arguments in favor of stronger due-process and abortion-rights protections.

The real issue in McDonald is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Currently, it covers only the federal government. The Supreme Court has already applied "fundamental rights," such as the right to free speech, to states. The National Rifle Association is asking the court to elevate the Second Amendment to the list of fundamental rights. The CAC hopes instead that the court will add not just the Second Amendment but the whole Bill of Rights. That would make state laws vulnerable to federal-court challenges under a part of the Constitution that liberals love: the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. Liberals would be able to sue states in federal court on everything from welfare to gay marriage, challenging laws that deprive someone of the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship. The CAC believes the benefits of these new protections are worth the weaker gun laws that may go along with them.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185/page/1

[PavePusher]

1. Arrgh, the spin, it makes my eyes cross.

"The CAC believes the benefits of these new protections are worth the weaker gun laws that may go along with them."

What 'weaker' gun laws?

Edit: no pun on your screen name intended, spin. But funny anyway... :evilgrin:

[spin]

2. If SCOTUS rules as I hope ...

Chicago will have MUCH weaker gun laws.

No problem with the pun.

[PavePusher]

3. Well, I wouldn't classify them as 'weaker'...

Less 'UnConstitutional' may be more fitting.

A gun law may be 'strong' and not restrictive of legal Citizens at the same time.

[spin]

5. That's a good point. (n/t)

[SteveM]

4. I saw the cyclonic rotation as well, but then it is Newsweek...

"Magazines have also manipulated information to create a pro-control impression. The Newsweek cover story of October 14, 1985 on 'machine guns' is a straightforward example. The cover headline was 'MACHINE GUNS U.S.A.' with a subheadline claiming that 'Nearly 500,000 Automatic Weapons Are Now in the Hands of Collectors -- and Criminals.' In fact, no one had any idea how many automatic weapons were in private hands, least of all Newsweek. The 500,000 figure was mentioned only once in the article itself, and then it referred neither to machine guns nor to fully automatic weapons but rather to semi-automatic 'military-style assault guns' or 'assault weapons'... But even this number as it pertained to semi-automatic 'assault weapons' was nothing more than a guess supplied by the GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NATIONAL COALITION TO BAN HANDGUNS. Newsweek apparently saw nothing improper about using a guess from a gun-control lobbyist as the sole basis for a cover headline. No basis was ever provided for the claim of 500,000 machine guns."
(emphasis mine) -- Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, 1997.

The incestuous relationship between Newsweek and the gun-control lobby is so bad you can smell it.

BTW, there may be over 16,000,000 American civilians who now own "military-style assault guns," or whatever MSM stumbles through for labels.