Brady Bunch Jerks sue Interior Dept over concealed guns in National Parks


PDA






Redneck with a 40
December 30, 2008, 10:04 PM
Here's the link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1097

What a bunch of a-holes.:fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Bunch Jerks sue Interior Dept over concealed guns in National Parks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Duke of Doubt
December 30, 2008, 10:11 PM
The last paragraph of their press release is so full of Obama it's beneath comment.

jr45
December 30, 2008, 10:20 PM
Truly sad. I like the way they stated: The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks. I guess us CCW folks are "dangerous people".
The suit charges that the Interior Department violated several federal laws in its rush to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office, including failing to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. I did not know carring a firearm has a environmental impact.

duckslayer
December 30, 2008, 10:29 PM
Maybe we should all sue helmke & brady bunch for slander for calling us "dangerous people."

crushbup
December 30, 2008, 10:44 PM
Maybe we should all sue helmke & brady bunch for slander for calling us "dangerous people."

I'd love to see that happen. I'd hold a party.

wyocarp
December 30, 2008, 10:45 PM
One Thing we could all do is call the Brady Campaign tomorrow.

Their number is 202-898-0792.

KC0QGL
December 30, 2008, 10:53 PM
Numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.

I want to see the proof.

Florida consistently has had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. Florida has been ranked as the state with the highest annual violent crime rate more often than any other state in the last two decades.

All the more reason to carry.

Just more brady bunch BS.

Prince Yamato
December 31, 2008, 12:01 AM
Why can't we sue them for slander? How is generalizing millions of ccw carriers as "dangerous" any different than calling all black people "lazy" or all Irish "drunkards"? Oh that's right, it's not. Whatever gets civil rights restricted the quickest, I suppose.

MD_Willington
December 31, 2008, 12:05 AM
Fine I'll CC an 8 shot revolver in the park...

Brady retards!

Bubba613
December 31, 2008, 12:10 AM
Don't you need standing in order to sue? How does this org have any standing in this case?

conserv1
December 31, 2008, 12:12 AM
If there is a "bright side" to this, it really DOES show their ignorance and desparation to take rights away from people who most now know pose NO problems.
What we can hope for is for this to blow back right into their slanderous faces and they will lose credibility. (NOT that they ever really had any).
They are a bunch of childish alarmists who can not back up their claims with unrefutable facts and it's time that they are exposed for what they are.
And I do agree that a "class action" lawsuit for slander may well be in order.
Maybe the NRA could start such a suit??

basicblur
December 31, 2008, 12:32 AM
The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C now that the Bush Administration will be allowing guns in these national park areas.

At's right-keep those kids away from areas where law-abiding citizens might be armed-WE'RE DOING IT FOR THE KIDS!
We teachers will just throw a hissy fit and keep our students home in New York and D.C. where we'll be SAFE! :what:

Now at's just funny-I don't care who you are! :D

Redneck with a 40
December 31, 2008, 01:02 AM
Yeah, that is a joke, stay in D.C and New York, where you are safe, lol! We all know the criminals turn around at the first "no guns allowed sign", lmao!

In all seriousness, this has been their strategy all along, if they can't overturn concealed carry laws, then they will try and restrict where you can carry, to nowhere.

Treo
December 31, 2008, 02:48 AM
The scary thing isn't that the bradys aren't above lying, the scary thing is that people believe that crap

Duke of Doubt
December 31, 2008, 02:51 AM
Not many people believe them anymore.

Imagine -- they're on the eve of the inauguration of the Chief Executive of their dreams, and yet all they dare try, in order to occupy their time and justify the Donation of Hollywierd is some nuisance suit about Yogi the Frigging Bear?

Bwah-hah-hah.

chris in va
December 31, 2008, 03:58 AM
You can't carry at the Statue of Liberty or on the Mall in DC anyway, so...I'm confused.

Hey, if the Brady campaign is for sensible gun laws, who qualifies to carry concealed?

Treo
December 31, 2008, 04:14 AM
I don't think it's so much that people don't believe as it is that people don't care. The majority of Americans didn't own guns before the election (they may now :D) they didn't think they had anything to lose.

I think that a portion (and by no means the largest portion) of America is starting to realize that there is an element in power now that would like nothing better than to create a socialist utopia (utopia means "no place" btw) either with us or against our wishes. And the only thing that holds that element in check is (ultimately its God) the fact that there are 300 million guns in this country.

The leadership of the Brady bunch (and the leftist element that supports them) isn't stupid they know that criminals are going to carry where ever they damn well please that law suit is aimed right at US, law abiding gun owners.

They will stop at nothing to disarm us. Lies, trickery, deceit, and the leftist media is nothing more than their propaganda arm.

Now I realize that I'm already way over the line for what's allowable on THR so another step won't hurt.

If (when) the leftists get your guns you will lose ALL of your rights. They'll decide what you eat (by controlling what's available in markets) how you travel (internal combustion engines cause global warming) How you worship (Jesus isn't very tolerant you know) how you raise your kids (the examples are faaaarrrrr too numerous). They will control every thing you do cradle to the grave.

People are starting to decide where their personal line in the sand is I know EXACTLY where mine is and I know what's going to happen when we get there.

I really hope that the leftist understand the significance of the "run on guns" that started in November and I really hope it gives them pause.

Final Thought.

Fight and you may die, run and you'll live. At least a while. And many (or few) years from now, dying in your bed would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for a chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom
Braveheart

KC0QGL
December 31, 2008, 04:35 AM
Treo, not a step too far IMO. You're right.

maddog1775
December 31, 2008, 04:40 AM
"Dangerous?"

Should I be insulted or flattered?

chris in va
December 31, 2008, 04:52 AM
Here's some of their 'ammunition' for not wanting CC permit holders in National Parks.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2008-ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

Art Eatman
December 31, 2008, 10:03 AM
Weird. The Texas Department of Public Safety and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement have both issued press releases stating as fact, from their criminal records, that CHL people are the most law-abiding of all identifiable groups.

Then there's the Brady Bunch's opinion...

subknave
December 31, 2008, 10:37 AM
Interesting how many of those incidents involved: police officers or retired police officers, politicians, teachers and other supposedly "good" people.

A lot of them are about people getting arrest for things that have nothing to do with their CCW such as drunkenness, driving on a suspended license etc. One thing I don't understand is if these stories are correct how did all these people get CCW licenses with criminal convictions? Sounds like they need to do a better job of screening and how many CCW holders are there? When they say 500+ licenses were revoked is that 1% 10% 60% or what of the license holders? Thats like saying 483,000 (not a real number) drivers commited heinous traffic offenses last year and including speeding and parking tickets.

Redneck with a 40
December 31, 2008, 09:56 PM
Wow, when Paul Helmke talks about Florida having one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, this is actually a factual statement.:eek::uhoh:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

However, you cannot base these figures on gun ownership and concealed carry, because crime is very multi-dimensional. A significant number of crimes are committed with hands and feet.

mandel7172
December 31, 2008, 11:43 PM
those brady bunch people will say anything (lies) to meet there ends --there comment about florida is a total lie- see: www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/CRIME_Trends/violent/index.asp -- these are violent crime stats from the dept. of law in florida

divemedic
January 1, 2009, 11:00 AM
Wow, when Paul Helmke talks about Florida having one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, this is actually a factual statement.

According to the page you linked to, Florida's violent crime total for 2007 was 131,880 for a population of 18,251,243, which is a rate of 724 per 100,000. Florida scored an 8 on the Brady center scorecard.

Washington DC had a total of 8,320 violent crimes with a population of 588,292. This is a rate of 1,410 per 100,000. DC, with a virtual ban on all firearms ownership in 2007, had a violent crime rate double that of Florida. DC did not receive a Brady score. Using their criteria, DC would have received a perfect score of 100.

In fact, if you use the Brady scorecard, 14 states had more lax gun laws than Florida, and only one (Tennessee) had a higher crime rate. Of the 31 states who scored lower (meaning that their gun laws were less restrictive) 2 of them had higher crime rates.

Since Florida had the 4th highest rate of violent crime, but was tied at 32 for the restrictiveness of state gun laws, one could conclude that gun laws have exactly NO effect on violent crime. That conclusion is also incorrect. The reason?

Not all states report all crimes into the database, which makes it useless for comparative purposes.

Garbage in= garbage out.

Redneck with a 40
January 1, 2009, 12:40 PM
Wait untill the 2008 data comes out, since Chicago has seen 500 homicides, with a gun ban, Illinois will probably overtake Florida, in violent crime rate. Lets see what Helmke has to say about that?:)

Chicago's gun laws are working really well, Jesse Jackson wants more. LMAO!:D

Art Eatman
January 1, 2009, 01:06 PM
DiveMedic, I recommend "Under The Gun" by Wright/Rossi/Daly. U of Fla Press, 1985. A primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes where firearms were involved. And, remember, this was after the passage of GCA 1968. (The authors were statisticians; neutral to mildly anti-gun when beginning their study.)

evan price
January 1, 2009, 01:17 PM
OK, why not take the fight to them? I'm sure we have some good legal minds and law degrees here on THR and in the firearms community, why not get together a class action lawsuit against the Brady org for their repeated attempts to violate the natural rights of 80 million law-abiding US citizens?

Carl N. Brown
January 1, 2009, 01:31 PM
Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"

Well, to get a carry permit in Tennessee, the process is about like getting a drivers license, and the Brady's are still against the carry permit system.

Look at the way they score state gun laws: shall-issue gun permit administered like a car license is a "D" or "F" grade, discretionary permit ("At Whim" rather than "Shall Issue") is a "B" and "A" grade is reserved for no carry allowed. And the Bradys support outright bans at every opportunity.

Allowing individuals permited to carry in their state to carry in a National Park in their state, given the small number of people with permits, and the very low number of crimes committed by permit holders, is not a big deal. The ban on legal permit holders really does not deter carrying by criminals, and allowing carry by permit holders does not allow carry by anyone else.

Besides, you can drive through National Park land in many states without necessarily realising you are on National Park land; several major highways pass thru National Parks, and this relieves permit holders of the necessity of finding alternate routes to avoid National Parks.

Blarelli
January 1, 2009, 01:32 PM
“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

I do believe labeling us as 'dangerous people' counts as libel, as defined by the supreme court. After all, I think he spoke those words with malice. Who's up for a defamation of character/slander/libel class action lawsuit?:D

benminer
January 1, 2009, 10:35 PM
You can't sue them for slander because an opinion ("dangerous") cannot be slander. You might have a case if somebody said you had cheated on your wife or lied on your taxes, but certainly not if they said you were a jerk or smelled funny.

Dutch wear ugly shoes. There I said it. Now who thinks I can be sued?

20nickels
January 1, 2009, 11:52 PM
BTW, our local State Patrol office is seeing a huge increase in CCW applicants, including my wife and I. We actually had to wait in line for it Tuesday!

Igloodude
January 2, 2009, 09:26 AM
The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C now that the Bush Administration will be allowing guns in these national park areas.

Wait, one still cannot legally carry (concealed or openly) firearms at Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, or the National Mall, surely the Brady Campaign is aware of this - why are they not correcting the teachers' ignorance, for the good of the children?


This is, sadly, a rhetorical question.

ArmedBear
January 2, 2009, 10:59 AM
I shudder to think of what the schoolteachers of DC and NY tell their kids about US History, anyway.

This is interesting, though: suing because something is legal, but no harm has come of it.

Can I sue the city because people are allowed to walk on the sidewalk? What about if they have ugly hair?

Where would this stop?

justice4all
January 2, 2009, 11:07 AM
We are the ones who should be suing, and we should have done it long ago, when the current-possibly to be lifted-ban went into effect. We're all excited because the DOI is finally willing to partially allow us to exercise our gun rights, when it had no legitimate authority to restrict those rights in the first place. If the 2nd Amendment means one has a right to have a handgun in the home for personal defense in DC, how much of a stretch is it to say one also has a right to have a gun in the middle of vast expanses of essentially unpoliced wilderness, which are often full of dangerous animals, and increasingly, dangerous people?

We're letting the antis dictate the terms of the battle.

ArmedBear
January 2, 2009, 11:10 AM
Want to see where the violent crime is?

Look no further than neighborhoods with a lot of "diversity" and a proliferation of "urban youths."

Perhaps we can sue the Federal Government for ending segregation, banning "redlining", etc., in violation of Federal Law, since violent crime has risen dramatically in diverse neighborhoods in the past 50 years.

What? You can't find the Federal law being violated?

Well, what Federal law was violated by the Park Service by allowing local CCW laws to apply in National Park areas?

And you don't like statistics about violent crime, when they lead to conclusions you don't like?

Then don't misuse them, Brady Bunch. My civil rights matter, too. Let's say it is true that banning concealed carry leads to less violent crime -- which it isn't, but let's just assume it is for a moment.

If a statistical reduction in violent crime were the only thing that mattered in our society, then we could simply sterilize certain minorities, establish martial law, execute anyone caught committing any minor offenses at any age, ban groups of more than two people from meeting in public or private without a permit, establish uniforms for all US residents so that gang clothes would be illegal, castrate any male caught looking at a female, establish separate cities for men and women, keep all US residents on heavy tranquilizers...

What, you don't think that the statistical reduction of violent crime is worth having a fascist society with the utter destruction of individual rights, Brady Bunch?

But clearly, you do think that.

If my right to defend my life is taken away by the government, that's what we have. Government has declared my life to be disposable, and will punish me for violating that principle. My ability to wear non-standard clothing is just window-dressing to hide what's really happening.

ArmedBear
January 2, 2009, 11:16 AM
BTW if this were rushed through while Bush is still in office, and some kind of secret, why was it brought up in 2007 and opened to public comment early in 2008?

Back then, didn't everyone but us poor ignorant rednecks, duped by the evil Rethuglicans, know that the Bus/hitler would declare himself to be the lifetime dictator of the country before the year was out?

conserv1
January 2, 2009, 11:20 AM
Carl N. Brown wrote..
"Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"

Ted Kennedy had a "registered" Jeep. Did it stop him from using it in a murder?
Maybe we should also register golf clubs?

LickitySplit
January 2, 2009, 11:20 AM
This is interesting... In an earlier Brady press release they had petioned Obamas nomination for Secretary of the Interior (Senator Ken Salazar), to rescind the order...


Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign today urged Senator Ken Salazar, if confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Obama Administration’s Secretary of the Interior, to initiate steps to rescind a rule rushed out this month by the Bush Administration that threatens to make America’s national parks less safe for visitors.

In a holiday gift to the gun lobby, the Interior Department finalized approval for a new rule that will allow more people, even potentially dangerous ones, to carry loaded, hidden handguns at all National Park Service Units. The regulations replace a Reagan-era rule that requires Park visitors to keep guns unloaded and stowed away.

President-Elect Obama has spoken out in the past about permissive concealed carry regulations. The National Park Service rule is scheduled to take effect in early January.

“When people go to our national parks, they don’t want to worry about who is packing a picnic and who is packing heat,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This new rule will make our parks less safe, and it should be rescinded.”


http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=...

A little Googling turned up this info on Salazars RKBA position...



Sen. Salazar's Statement on Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold the Second Amendment, Gun Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Salazar issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun.

“Today’s decision reaffirms what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and what millions of Americans already know: the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding individual to own a gun. The District of Columbia’s ban on all handgun possession went too far and was rightly declared unconstitutional.”


http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/080626scdecisio...



SEN. SALAZAR STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF THE GUN LIABILITY BILL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar released the following statement on his support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which passed the Senate today by a vote of 65 to 31:

“This gun liability legislation is commonsense. When guns are used in crimes, we should punish criminals. Responsible manufacturers and dealers should not be punished for the crimes of others. This legislation would not protect gun manufacturers from their own irresponsible or unlawful misconduct. It would allow manufacturers to be held liable when:

* a defect in design or manufacture of the product when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable (traditional product liability actions);
* breach of contract or warranty;
* selling to a person known to be prohibited from possessing a firearm;
* where the seller conspires with a buyer to make false statements;
* where the seller knowingly made false entries in records;
* negligent entrustment or negligence per se; and
* the transferor of a gun is convicted of knowingly committing certain federal or state felonies.

This issue is about personal responsibility. Certainly, manufacturers and dealers who act irresponsibly or in clear violation of the law should be held responsible for their actions. But criminals – not law-abiding manufacturers and dealers – should be held responsible when guns are used to commit crimes.”

Thirty-three states including Colorado already have similar laws on the books.


http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/050729gunliab.h...

So... either Salazar told them to go pound sand, or it's a stall tactic by the Bradys to seek an injunction before the policy goes into effect.


I really can't see the sense in taking the lengthy and unpredictable legal route unless Salazar had shut them down on their request.

Also, filing a lawsuit against those in high places is not a good way to start off a working relationship and curry any sort of favoritism in the future.

Carl N. Brown
January 2, 2009, 12:54 PM
Banning legal permit holders does not prevent dangerous people from being dangerous or armed in national parks. The real dangerous people don't need no stinkin' permits to be dangerous or to go armed.

To get my carry permit I took a four hour class on the laws on self defense, a four hour class on gun safety, passed written exams, fired qualification at the firing range, submitted fingerprints to TBI and FBI, passed federal and state background checks, and paid about $180.00 in fees.

So Paul Helmke wants dangerous people like me barred from carrying concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks. (My preferred carry piece is a revolver but I suspect he would object to that too.)

Two friends of my brother were members of a band. I played volleyball with them at a July 4th picnic. Then one day my brother told me they had been killed by a carjacker. On way to band practice, they had stopped at a mountain overlook to admire the fall foliage (spectacular that fall). A carjacker took their lives, their car and eleven dollars. I cannot help but feel that if they had been legally armed, the carjacker might have been deterred.

The Brady Bunch advises people not to resist but to give criminals what they want: what if what the criminal wants is to see you die as slowly and painfully as possible?

Brady Bunch is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) rebranded. Remember the laws they tried to pass in California and Massachusetts in the 1970s: a ban on all sales and a ban on all possession of handguns. "Sensible gun control" to them is whatever leads to prohibition, one step at a time.

natecade1
January 2, 2009, 04:04 PM
Treo for pres.

JImbothefiveth
January 2, 2009, 04:08 PM
So for the time being, guns are allowed, right? And also, will the new administration have the power to stop this?

C. Rabbit
January 2, 2009, 05:35 PM
The suit charges that the Interior Department violated several federal laws in its rush to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office, including failing to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
I did not know carring a firearm has a environmental impact.

It does not. The report issued by the Interior Department in regards to this rule change noted just that when explaining why they did not do an environmental review, which is only required when something will actually affect the environment. So more Brady lies.

CR

subknave
January 2, 2009, 06:43 PM
I haven't checked on its status but I would think that it would be thrown out for a number of reasons. What is their standing for one. How does this rule effect them? It isn't like it is prohibiting them from doing something or really causing them any inconvenience. I would think it is only a ploy to get some headlines.

KBintheSLC
January 2, 2009, 08:20 PM
I guess us CCW folks are "dangerous people".

Does that surprise anyone? Really?

We know what they think of us... even though they have no grounds for it. D-bags of galactic proportions... but thats not new either.

Wait untill the 2008 data comes out, since Chicago has seen 500 homicides, with a gun ban, Illinois will probably overtake Florida, in violent crime rate.
Thats funny... here in Utah, despite all of us "crazy gun nuts" the murder rate dropped dramatically from 79 murders down to 51 statewide.

Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"
Because driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right DUH!!! I don't need anyones permission to exercise my rights. Maybe they need to get a license to spout their mouths against the constitution.

The Deer Hunter
January 2, 2009, 08:55 PM
Hey, if the Brady campaign is for sensible gun laws, who qualifies to carry concealed?

Only dangerous people.

razorback2003
January 2, 2009, 09:53 PM
Are where most of the violent crimes are, as if no one else knew. It is funny that the Brady Campaign and those like them do not campaign for strong sentences for violent criminals. I'm tired of seeing many states trying to rehabilitate criminals and giving them a second chance when their victims were not given a second chance. It is sad how many murderers and rapists already have a rap sheet a mile long. Criminals are done like fish....catch and release. That is the 'nice' way of trying to 'help' those unfortunate youth (anyone under 30) who is forced into the gang lifestyle. If the stupid Brady Bunch would put their efforts into swift punishment for criminals, I'd have a little more respect for them. Instead they want to hassle people, like us, who are just trying to protect ourselves from the thugs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Bunch Jerks sue Interior Dept over concealed guns in National Parks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!