26 March 2008

Heller EyeWitness Report

Alan Korwin, the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in America, has some thoughts on Heller:

"There’s no telling where it could end up. And the prospects, as I see them, are pretty scary stuff. The more I read my ton of inbound email, the more concerned I’m getting. Not a single Justice or court brief suggested all or even many gun laws must go away, that’s just irrational raving. But whatever standard comes out, the Bradys will be able to make some claims that, “See, this falls within reasonable regulation.” And the pro-rights people will have openings to challenge some of the more odious laws, and see if they can prevail. No one knows where any of that will lead. We’re back to square one, legislatures, local courts, and the ballot box.

"New laws that ban rights may be tougher to enact or even introduce, and pro-rights arguments may have more fuel. Rights-supportive laws may have some obstacles removed, though Texas managed to pass ten of those good laws last session without the Heller case. So who wins in that scenario?"

"Justice Roberts did ask if we even have to go anywhere near these things to settle the issue at hand, and he’s right of course, and will be prudent (read, very narrow) in the scope of this decision. I think they’ll duck all the fodder we out here like to chew, leave those to digest later. They’ve got enough on their plate without it."

"Will the presidential election affect those future outcomes? You bet it will, and that may be the biggest question mark of all. Note that the news media has not raised the point. I wonder why."

Why, indeed.

4 comments:

Bitter said...

Why, indeed.

Easy, it's not a sexy story, it's nearly impossible to speculate at this stage in the game on something so vague with any sort of credibility, and not many gun owners even get really excited about it.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just simply not a great news hook.

I know that many respect Korwin, but I started questioning his judgment when writing about the press a while ago. He gets upset when they cover no news. I don't understand how you cover a negative.

However, my most critical judgment comes from the time when he asserted that the reason the Heller case had the party name change from Parker was because of some sort of racial/PC conspiracy effort to turn the SCOTUS against us. (Parker was a black woman, Heller a white man.)

When multiple people called him out in comments and on blogs, he issued no correction. He still let it stand. I guess that's coverage of a negative for you.

Brent Greer said...

Bitter, thanks for writing.
Yeah, I raised an eyebrow also when the black helicopter crowd came out of their bunkers to denounce the name change as part of a larger conspiracy.

As for the what ifs, I'm with you. I know too many attorneys who will not answer the "what if" questions. You're better to redirect the question. In the legislative arena, the antis are genius are working the media and lawmakers leaning their way with bloody "what if" scenarios. Korwin will always be a go-to guy for MSM, whether we like it or not. Fortunately there are far more places people can go to read varying credible opinions, yours and my journals, for example. But the MSM will find a way, even on a slow news day, to try to make even a boring gun story sexy. Even though they will botch it mercilessly.

Alan Korwin said...

I learned of your site thru a google alert I set up. I had not previously heard complaints about the Parker/Heller name switch issue you discussed here. I take such things seriously and issue corrections whenever they are justified. One is due here. It will be in the next Page Nine, hopefully in April (I'm nowhere near as fast as some people who do this). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Next time, send me an email, I read blogs rarely (lack of time).
Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com

Bitter said...

I'm calling BS on not knowing. I say that because people notified you on your own website and you continued to stand by it by all appearances when you refused to address the matter or update the post.

In fact, I didn't even see references to correcting the website even today after you put the short note at the very bottom of your newsletter yesterday.