Posted by the AP a couple of hours ago:

... People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

[more]

More and more, people are beginning to see the opportunities for gun violence prevention in the Heller decision.

Former D.C. prosecutor and current Prince George's County, Maryland, state's attorney Glenn Ivey has a piece in today's Washington Post offering his perspective:

The Supreme Court decision last month overturning the District's handgun ban, though controversial, may have ended a long-standing political logjam. As a local law enforcement official, I hope this decision will allow a working coalition to transcend partisan disagreements and support strategies proven to reduce gun violence.

The ruling left almost entirely intact the gun restrictions in Maryland and most other jurisdictions. Still permitted are: licensing requirements, bans on concealed weapons, prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill possessing handguns, bans on carrying handguns in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" and conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

It's time to move forward. We must develop more rational policies to reduce gun violence....

...

I hope the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller forces this debate to the middle. Boston, New York, Cincinnati and other cities have dramatically reduced gun violence through a combination of tough guns laws, longer prison terms for violators, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and intervention and prevention programs that target at-risk youths.

But states and localities could use more federal help. The government should:

· Restore funding for local crime-fighting programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, as well as for Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which were cut deeply by the Bush administration last year. This would enable localities to hire more police officers and supply them with needed technology.

· Close the gun show loophole, ban "dangerous and unusual" firearms such as assault weapons, require microstamp identifiers on fired cartridges, and allow local law officials to access federal gun-trace data used to track illegal gun dealers.

· Fully fund the new Second Chance Act, which would help ex-offenders with the employment and education assistance they need to become productive citizens. Also, provide more funds for school and community programs proven to reduce youth violence.

· Increase federal prosecutions of gun cases, especially in states that lack or do not impose stiff sentences for gun offenders.

By assuring law-abiding citizens' right to own guns but leaving intact most restrictions on owning and carrying guns, the court may have taken away the red meat for extremists on both sides. Perhaps now the federal government can strengthen its political partnership with localities and states to stop gun violence.

[more]

Today's Montgomery Advertiser talks about the problem of kids and guns in America:

... Sadly, in this nation such gun injuries of young people are far from rare. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a child under 10 is killed or disabled every other day by a gunshot. The academy claims that guns can be found in 40 percent of the homes in the nation.

The academy recommends that the best way to prevent gun deaths involving children is to completely remove guns from homes. But in Alabama, which has a strong hunting and gun ownership culture, that is not likely to happen in a large percentage of homes. So it is very important that those adults who choose to keep guns in the home do so in a safe manner, especially if children are ever going to be present.

[more]

Read here to learn more about the risks of keeping a gun in the home, and the gun laws your state can adopt to help keep children and families safer.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, it's been my hope that it might be easier to find some common ground on steps to help reduce gun violence in this country now that the extremes of the gun control debate (gun confiscation on the one hand and the absolutist "any person, any place, any gun" on the other hand) have been rejected by the Court.

Some sense that this might be possible came out of a PRI (Public Radio International) show that I was part of a couple days ago. The "To the Point" show on Tuesday, July 1, hosted by Warren Olney involved a discussion of the Heller case and its implications for the future with Robert Levy from the Cato Institute, LA Chief of Police William Bratton, me, Chuck Michel (described for the show as the Chief Attorney for the NRA), and former Guns & Ammo magazine editor Whit Collins.

After I brought up the numerous permissible restrictions and limitations on the "right to keep and bear arms" outlined by Justice Scalia in Heller, including his references to possible licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, the host asked the NRA representative his thoughts as follows (at 25:00/50:04):

Warren Olney: What about registration and licensing?

Chuck Michel: I think that, well, that’s a very interesting question. The problem has always been that registration and licensing led to confiscation and I think, I still think registration and licensing is really - it’s problematic in multiple respects, privacy reasons and that kind of thing, but I think that now that, you know - there are a lot of people in the gun control movement who are really gun ban, banners. They’re in favor of civilian disarmament. Those folks are never going to get their way now as a result of this opinion, so I think licensing and registration is, it’s going to be tougher to defend, or, I should say tougher to criticize.�

Olney: Oh so, in other words, licensing and registration are more likely to be upheld?

Michel: Yes, particularly if it’s – and I’m not saying I necessarily agree with that – but particularly if there are actual licenses issued. A lot of times, what the problem with licensing and registration is that the system is abused. It’s set up, theoretically, to actually issue a license, but you can’t really get one. That was sort of the situation in Washington, D.C. So those licensing schemes which are illusory I think are all going to be struck down. If you have actual, a good faith licensing system in place that complies with due process notions, and you know, procedural notions of constitutionality, then I think those will probably stand.

After this, the radio host asked for my response:

Olney: …Paul Helmke, back to you, Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence, what are you hearing from Chuck Michel that either reassures or disturbs you about what’s gonna happen next?

Paul Helmke: Well, I was very happy to hear the comments about licensing and registration because really that could be one of the crucial things that could help make our communities safer. If we knew who had the guns and where they were, and made sure that they passed some basic level of testing, knowledge of the laws before they had the guns, that makes sense. We’re not a gun ban organization. We don’t push for gun bans. But we do feel that things like licensing and registration, real licensing and registration, things like background checks, restrictions on military style weapons, can make a difference here, and I think Justice Scalia allows that. And for the – for Chuck at least – and the NRA hopefully to recognize that licensing and registration might make sense, I think is a step forward. My hope with this whole decision is that by eliminating the extremes, the extreme on the one side of a gun ban, and the extreme on the other side of “anybody can have any gun, anywhere, any place, any time� – by eliminating the extremes, maybe we can get this middle-of-the-road, common-sense discussion in the middle, and try to figure out what really works here.

Then the host returned to Mr. Michel as follows:

Olney: Chuck Michel, when people say “military-style� we hear about assault weapons, you said something earlier about various classes being banned, is that an area where you think there will be litigation?

Michel: Well, let me just first clarify, so I don’t get overly criticized by the members of the NRA that may be listening, you can’t license a civil right. So, I’m not talking about a license to own a gun or to have a gun. There are certain types of licensing which will survive and others that won’t….

I’m not sure what kind of license Mr. Michel thought he was talking about, but his original statement speaks for itself.

From Heller's attorney’s statement at the March 18 oral argument…

“We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing... So long as the licensing law is not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, so long as there are some hopefully objective standards and hopefully some process....�

…to Justice Scalia memorializing that statement in his opinion…

Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing� and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.�

… Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

…to one of the NRA's chief lawyers now saying positive things about the possibility of gun licensing and registration, maybe we really are on the way to finding some common ground here.

We still make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns. Now that gun confiscation is off the table, maybe we can start finding some areas of agreement that will help make us all safer.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Besides the NRA, it is increasingly difficult to tell who is in favor of this crazy idea.

As we've noted before, the Association of National Park Rangers is against it, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is against it, and the U.S. Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police is against it.

Add the Billings Gazette to the list:

... Montana law permits concealed weapons to be carried outside city limits - with certain restrictions - and has no greater restrictions on guns in state parks. So if the Interior Department adopts the proposed rule, it would appear that anyone who can lawfully possess any firearm in Montana could carry concealed firearms in Glacier Park.

Those who think that's a good thing should consider this: Even as Montana law ensures the rights of its residents to carry firearms, including concealed firearms, the law sets limits for public safety. For example, it's against Montana law to carry concealed weapons inside city limits unless one has a concealed-weapon permit issued by a county sheriff. (There are more than 15,000 such permits statewide, and Montana law also offers reciprocity for concealed-weapon permit holders in 40 other states.)

Even Montanans who hold sheriff-issued permits aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons into financial institutions, places where alcohol is served or any building owned or rented by a local, state or federal government entity.

Like other cherished American rights, the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute. It doesn't mean anybody at any place at any time can carry a loaded gun - concealed or not.

We suggest that national parks with crowds of people in unfamiliar territory are one of those places for reasonable restrictions to ensure public safety without seriously impinging on Second Amendment rights. The incidence of crime is lower in national parks than in surrounding states. The existing park rules don't take guns away from anyone. They don't keep hunters or other people from bringing their guns on vacation. They simply say the guns can't be loaded and within reach.

[more]