More Brady hypocrisy


PDA






Zen21Tao
June 7, 2007, 07:14 PM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/2007/may/video/
(video also available)

Transcript:

Q: First of all Mr. Henigan, can you tell us what the court decided?

In the Parker case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down D.C.'s very strict handgun laws finding that they violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. And this decision is the first in history by a U.S. Court of Appeals striking down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. It is literally unprecedented. And it is also in defiance of a United States Supreme Court decision issued almost 70 years ago. That decision held that the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment applies only to well regulated state militias and not to the private possession of guns for other purposes. The D.C. Circuit in the Parker case held that the right is not restricted to the militia and that was in utter contradiction to what the Supreme Court has decided.

Q: So, the Court effectively ignored the first half of the Second Amendment and focused only on the second half regarding the right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the Court has held, the Supreme Court has held, that that statement of purpose must be taken seriously and the right must be evaluated and interpreted in light of that purpose. And by ignoring that purpose the D.C. Circuit not only contradicted the Supreme Court but also years of precedent which establishes that
it is not legitimate for courts to edit the Constitution. The courts must interpret the Constitution as it was written by the framers. That is what the D.C. Circuit did not do. (Emphases added)

Q: Does this decision place any of our nation's gun laws at risk?

Well, we believe it does. We believe that very sensible, life-saving gun laws at the local, state and federal level are threatened by this decision because once you rip the right to keep and bear arms away from its stated purpose, you basically invite activist judges across the board who may be hostile to gun control as a policy matter, you invite them to second guess the wisdom of legislatures in enacting those law and to strike them down under the Second Amendment. So we may very well see challenges to such common sense laws as the Brady Law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Machine Gun Ban - all of these are put at risk by this radical decision.

Q: Do you truly think this decision will have such far-reaching impact?

Well, those who have sponsored this case have already stated their intention to use this law to challenge other gun laws. I take them very seriously. I take them at their word. They're not just concerned about the D.C. gun laws. They're gearing up to use this decision to attack other laws. And certainly the threat is even more dire if this case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the worst-case scenario, the Supreme Court affirms the Parker decision. That's why it's so important for us to fight this decision and to get it reversed.

Q: What can our supporters do to help?

We want to create a drumbeat of opposition against this decision not only in the legal community but the public at large. We want to see letters to the editor. We want to see callers into radio talk shows. We want to see op-ed pieces. We want to see experts in the field writing about this decision. We want the public to be mobilized expressing outrage that gun laws, that have the broad support of the American people, would be called into question and put at risk by this renegade decision.

Wow... not moments before saying it is "illegitimate... to edit the Constitution" he himself edits the Constitution so he can misquote the 2nd Amendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "More Brady hypocrisy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TallPine
June 7, 2007, 07:27 PM
Geeze... the Brady Bunch is actually having a panic attack over Parker.

Maybe it will eventually become the Roe vs Wade of gun rights :)

illspirit
June 7, 2007, 07:54 PM
But wait, I thought the Brady's don't want to ban gun. Why are they moaning that the pistol ban got overturned and that the MG ban might too? They're not lying about not wanting to ban guns, are they? :rolleyes:

jselvy
June 7, 2007, 08:53 PM
How can the reaffirmation of the Constitution be a radical decision?


Jefferson

ServiceSoon
June 7, 2007, 09:08 PM
If you read the federalist papers it clearly enforces the right of the individual to bear arms. How can the "Brady Bunch" or "Brady Few," more accuratly described view it any other way?

lamazza
June 7, 2007, 09:17 PM
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Did they forget a few words in there somewhere?

duckandcover
June 7, 2007, 09:20 PM
Um, yeah. something about "the people"?

Standing Wolf
June 7, 2007, 10:41 PM
Um, yeah. something about "the people"?

The leftist extremists conveniently forgot about we, the people a long, long time ago.

nico
June 8, 2007, 12:42 AM
. . . not to mention that he misrepresented the Miller decision. In that case, the ruling (which was given in the absence of a defendant or defense attorney), was that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected by the 2A because it's not a weapon of the militia. It made no reference as to whether membership in a militia was a prerequisite to owning a weapon of the militia, and made no attempt to define the militia.

FlaXD
June 8, 2007, 05:30 AM
Q: So, the Court effectively ignored the first half of the Second Amendment and focused only on the second half regarding the right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the Court has held, the Supreme Court has held, that that statement of purpose must be taken seriously and the right must be evaluated and interpreted in light of that purpose. And by ignoring that purpose the D.C. Circuit not only contradicted the Supreme Court but also years of precedent which establishes that
it is not legitimate for courts to edit the Constitution. The courts must interpret the Constitution as it was written by the framers. That is what the D.C. Circuit did not do. (Emphases added)

Q: Does this decision place any of our nation's gun laws at risk?

Well, we believe it does. We believe that very sensible, life-saving gun laws at the local, state and federal level are threatened by this decision because once you rip the right to keep and bear arms away from its stated purpose, you basically invite activist judges across the board who may be hostile to gun control as a policy matter, you invite them to second guess the wisdom of legislatures in enacting those law and to strike them down under the Second Amendment. So we may very well see challenges to such common sense laws as the Brady Law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Machine Gun Ban - all of these are put at risk by this radical decision.
It is so hard (and painful) to laugh and throw up at the same time.:barf:

eric_t12
June 8, 2007, 05:35 AM
i laugh whenever i read their stuff.

if their goal is really 'safety for american people' or something like it, i applaud them.

what i do NOT applaud, is their lack-of or complete misuse of statistics, and (for me anyway) common sense. for the same reasons we all already know. Namely, that you can't legislate against someone who commits crimes, because they are already (inherently in the name criminal) not following law. it only limits those who deem it necessary to follow the law.

like i said, its all stuff we all already know on here, and mostly anywhere common sense reigns...

-1 for the Brady Campaigns faults

jselvy
June 8, 2007, 05:57 AM
I'm kinda glad that they are reacting like this. t gives credence to the idea that this may be a landmark decision that may open a door to the removal of all of the other damn silly laws.
Look at 'em run:)

Jefferson

Zen21Tao
June 9, 2007, 04:58 AM
I actually think the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups are their own worst enemies.

We live in "the information age" where a simple Google search can being up a wealth of facts and statistics. Groups like the Brady's used to be able to disseminate all the lies, falsehoods and fear mongering without fear of rebuttals when it wasn't so easy to research their claims. But now, thanks to the power of the internet, their claims can be researched and their myths dispelled.

However, instead of recognizing this and revamping their methods as to only support small measures they have a chance at justifying in the eyes of the public, they still show up to throw their support behind anything and everything anti-gun no matter what it is.

For example, they try to present themselves as a group that wants to aid law enforcement in fighting crime but what does their actions show the American public?

Instead of a group that stands behind the law, the public see a group that supports handgun bans that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional, a group that supports the gun confiscations of Hurricane Katrina that were also ruled unconstitutional and a group that supports the Mayors Coalition even when the coalition's actions have been deemed to be illegal, a jeopardy to ongoing federal law enforcement stings, and a danger to the lives of federal agents involved in such stings.

In addition that Brady Campaign supports Tiahrt Amendment even though the ATF itself says it would jeopardized their ability to conduct investigation. IMHO, groups like The Brady campaign are becoming more and more marginalized as the public sees through them and loses a lot more respect for them.

the pistolero
June 9, 2007, 10:56 AM
We live in "the information age" where a simple Google search can being up a wealth of facts and statistics.

We do indeed live in an age where such actions may be taken, but who's to say the public at large takes the advantage of that as it should? I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here too: If the American people were anywhere near as informed, educated and active as they should be, gun control as envisioned by Handgun Control and its ilk would be six feet under and Dennis Henigan and his cohorts would long ago have been dismissed for what they are.

Redneck with a 40
June 9, 2007, 11:11 AM
Pistolero is right, there is a large group of people that will take what the BC says as "fact", without doing any research, people are lazy. The BC also plays to people's emotions with their jargon. The BC will say "30 people are killed every day by gunfire". However, this little factoid is highly dis-honest, the BC does NOT seperate crimes from accidents and they include people up to age 24 as children. This is merely one example of the blatant deception the BC uses to advance their agenda.

The best resource I've found to rebuke the BC crap is www.gunfacts.info.:D

camacho
June 9, 2007, 11:21 AM
The courts must interpret the Constitution as it was written by the framers.

Wow! She should have read the Court's entire ruling on that. This is precisely what the Court did. It is amazing how they spin things around when it suits them.

armedandsafe
June 9, 2007, 01:56 PM
In that case, the ruling (which was given in the absence of a defendant or defense attorney), was that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected by the 2A because it's not a weapon of the militia.

Actually, what the Court's decision said was that they couldn't address the question of whether the gun was covered under the militia portion of the Amendment, because there was no evidence nor argument presented by the defense covering this subject.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. (emphasis added by ecr)

Pops

Zen21Tao
June 9, 2007, 01:57 PM
We do indeed live in an age where such actions may be taken, but who's to say the public at large takes the advantage of that as it should?

Part of the point I intended to make is that in many cases John Q. Public doesn't even have to do the research himself because their is someone else able to do it for him. Before the age of the internet counter facts were not so easy to look up, but now they are. This is much like members of the public being able to discredit the forged letter regarding Bush's military record leaked to Dan Rather and 60 minutes.

Facts and statistics are so easy to look up that even rebuttals can be made on the Brady's own website for fence sitters to see. In fact, over on the Brady blog we have the comments section filled with pro-gun people using sited facts and statistics to tear tearing apart the Brady's anti-gun arguments. Fence sitters that go there find, not only the poor non-sited Brady info, but also our rebuttals.

For example, when they claim a rather high accident/crime rate among "children", we provide quoted statistics from the DOJ, CDC, FBI, etc. showing that their figures only work is a "child" is defined as anyone under 24 and then showing the read figures that coincide with what most people consider a child (someone under 15).

Another example is just recently the Brady's attempted argue against CCW laws saying that "thousands of concealed carry licensees in Florida have had their licenses revoked for atrocious gun crimes." I looked up this figure and found around 897 licensees had indeed been revoked but there was no statement as to why each was revoked. Giving the BC the benefit of the doubt and letting them have the entire 897 figure, I concluded that 897/200,000 licenses meant only a 0.04% violent crime rate among CCW license holders. This is number is so small compared to the national (or state) average including all person that is shows CCW to be a overall success. I also provided references so fence sitters could look up my figures if they wish.

LAR-15
June 9, 2007, 02:03 PM
Maybe it will eventually become the Roe vs Wade of gun rights

I hope not.

R v W was a bad SCOTUS decision.

antsi
June 11, 2007, 12:53 AM
------quote-------
R v W was a bad SCOTUS decision
------------------

I agree RvW is shaky from a constituitonal law standpoint, but at least it solved that sticky abortion controversy once and for all :rolleyes:

Carl N. Brown
June 11, 2007, 06:51 PM
Gee, I have bothered to read both the Miller decision and the
Parker decision and the Brady/HCI spin is bad enough to open
a wormhole in the space-time continuum.

Not to mention Henigan dropping "of the people" from the text
of the second amendment.

Anything you can do wrong with a gun is already against the
law--murder, assault, armed robbery, reckless endangerment--
ENFORCE THOSE LAWS. All these nit picking definitions of
"good" versus "bad" gun and most restrictions on legal sales
and ownership only affect the law abiding.

Brady/HCI has promoted some of the most useless and pointless
laws in existance.

If you enjoyed reading about "More Brady hypocrisy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!