Brady Campaign's reaction to Heller vs. D.C. #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Superlite27

Superlite27

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
712
I am a huge proponent of joining the Brady Campaign's mailing list. (Know thy enemy!) I always receive updates and information about the latest crap they are trying to pull.

My latest notification that I received from them was that they would be on the capitol steps after yesterday's arguments in order to show support for blah....blah...blah..... and to meet with members of the press.

Has anyone found any info on their reaction to the arguments yesterday? I've searched, but can't seem to find anything on their reaction, or what they think the outcome will be.

I'm guessing that they viewed yesterday as a great victory blah...blah...blah... Show of support for gun control blah...blah...blah etc.
 
bagdad_bob_large.gif


Today was a great day for gun control! Soon, the Supreme Court will uphold DC's right to ensure the safety of its citizens, and give us the momentum to end gun violence forever!
 
Yes I got one 2 days ago asking for a donation before all there arguements get flushed. They said they needed money to submit a brief in support of DC who couldnt afford a lawyer.
 
From their website. Not too exuberant.

The Brady Campaign was at the U.S. Supreme Court as the Justices heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, the most significant Second Amendment case in nearly seventy years.

Following the arguments, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said that he is hopeful that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."
Click to expand...
http://www.handguncontrol.org/
 
From Brady Campaign release:

Following the arguments, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said that he is hopeful that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

Doublethink

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Click to expand...
 
if they call me i will tell them as john
nash said in the movie "I have respect for the 2nd". OF course he said beer,but i say 2nd,Just like i have respect for the 82nd airborne.All
ways will support gun in the hands of law abidding people
 
First thought I get is anyone that uses the term "common sense" aint got any unless they are wearing dirty socks and cant spell sence correctly. In DC I get the idea that its not the rights of the people thats a issue but the powers of the state as for one nobody in DC got to vote on the gun ban. and for 2 anything you hear from the Brady bunch you dern well can figure 180 from that is fact.
 
Sorry, I know the last comment was not very Highroad but its hard to stay in line when talking about people that cant find the road.
 
Please Help pay Helmke's salary

:barf:Is this the email they sent?

"If this email does not display correctly, click here to open it in your browser.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller
The Most Significant Second Amendment Case in the Nation's History
Dear Michael,


As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and many others. Please help us defend these laws by making as generous a contribution as you can today to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

As the Court deliberates over the next few months, your support is critical. We need to be prepared for the outcome, whatever that might be. This is no time to play wait-and-see.

A lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. This position got a lot of attention in Tuesday's arguments.

However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support from all sides for responsible regulation concerning guns. We need to stress this position to the American public before and after the decision is made in late June.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

One thing is certain — we have the support of many Americans like you on our side. In a recent Washington Post poll, a solid majority of Americans indicated they would support a law for their communities similar to the one in question in the Supreme Court case.

While I was in the courtroom, Brady staff and activists were at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by — school children, government workers, and tourists.

We will not wait for the Justices' ruling in this case. We are, and will continue to be, on the offensive. Our voices — your voices — are making a difference!

Now is the time to contribute to the Brady Center as we get ready during the next few months for all the vital next steps that will follow the Court's historic decision.

Please give generously today.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. Click here to see my remarks at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following the oral argument. But first, please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to the Brady Center."

These people are already working on Plan B. They are going to keep hammering away for local jurisdictions to keep the ability to make their own gun-laws. Why not? They've been ignoring the Constitution from day one. Ignoring SCOTUS is no biggie. :banghead: :barf: :cuss:
 
Last edited:
Anybody else notice how the only people cheering them on were children (who've presumable been taught from day one that guns are evil), government workers (cushy tax-payer-funded job, and they probably live in VA anyway), and tourists (foreigners maybe, who already have the yoke of government heavy upon their shoulders)?
 
"the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws"

That says it all. they believe a total ban is sensible, and are going to push for "home rule" state and local legislation. Instead of one federal battle, expect hundreds of local battles.

Unless SCOTUS says that, like 1A and 5A, 2A applies to states as well under 14th Amendment, this si where our next fight will be.
 
"A heavily-regulated populace, being necessary to the security of a police-state, the right of the people to pass common-sense gun legislation shall not be infringed."------Paul Helmke;)
 
would be nice to strap a pistol to your hip when you go out everyday.

and have people ask why you don`t have your rifle with you today.

(by rifle i mean, evil "high capacity" select fire rifles...)
 
Wow, even the NRA doesn't beg for money as shamelessly as the Brady Bunch does!

Paul Helmke said:
the federal machine gun ban
Click to expand...
Huh? So is Knob Creek a felon convention or something?

rickstir said:
I wonder if anyone asked them if the ban helped Jimmy?
Click to expand...
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
 
The gun guys are strangely quiet. Just a bunch of postings of editorals from the usual liberal rags.

New York Times: Justices Hear Gun-Control Case.

Based upon the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices appeared likely to issue a ruling that will please neither side entirely — and guarantee that the meaning of the Second Amendment will continue to be debated.

The arguments on Tuesday ranged from the semantic — like the difference between “keep” and “bear,” and whether “arms” referred to sporting guns as well as military weapons — to the historical. It was noted that in some early militias, only officers carried handguns, while the rank and file carried only shoulder weapons

And when the Founders referred to “the people,” did they mean individuals, or the citizenry collectively, or both? Not incidentally, Justice Ginsburg observed that “the people” in Colonial times generally meant only white men from the ages of 17 to 45 or so.

Guardian: US Court Appears Unlikely To Challenge Individual Gun Ownership.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has frequently held the balance of power in the court, said today that the constitution's second amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."....

Gun opponents argue that the second amendment provided for a collective right to bear arms, not an individual. But groups such as the powerful National Rifle Association claim that individuals have the right.

Kennedy's remarks indicated he subscribed to the NRA view.

If the supreme court rules the way that Kennedy suggests, it has potential ramifications for gun control laws throughout the US, not just DC. While there is a general acceptance that some gun laws have to remain, such as a ban on convicted criminals owning machine-guns, other controls are regarded as less clear-cut, and a supreme court ruling could see state laws being challenged.

Los Angeles Times: U.S. Supreme Court Seems Poised to Strike Down D.C. Handgun Ban.

The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

International Herald Tribune: Gun Control Should Be a Hot Topic Among U.S. Presidential Aspirants.

The firearms-homicide rate of about 3.42 per 100,000 citizens is the highest of any industrialized country. It is about 100-fold the gun-homicide rate in Britain or Japan; only violence-prone developing nations like Colombia have a higher rate.

Last year, more children died from gunfire than from cancer and HIV/AIDS combined; the firearms death rate for kids under 15 is 12 times more than the 25 other largest industrialized countries combined, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The United States has the highest concentration of gun ownership in the world, 283 million guns - a third of them handguns - owned by about a third of the citizenry.....

In Washington in 2006, more than 1,400 robberies were committed with guns; 125 people were killed. By contrast, Canada, with a population 59 times larger than Washington's, had 190 deaths related to firearms.

In 2006, Washington law-enforcement officials recovered 2,656 firearms, many of which had been used in crimes and a number of which undoubtedly would have been in the future.

The rationale for focusing on handguns is simple. In an urban area, these easily concealed weapons have posed lethal threats in schools, office buildings and public transportation
Click to expand...
 
The firearms-homicide rate of about 3.42 per 100,000 citizens is the highest of any industrialized country. It is about 100-fold the gun-homicide rate in Britain or Japan; only violence-prone developing nations like Colombia have a higher rate.

Last year, more children died from gunfire than from cancer and HIV/AIDS combined; the firearms death rate for kids under 15 is 12 times more than the 25 other largest industrialized countries combined, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Click to expand...

Two Points:

1) Who gives a S#@! what the firearms death rate is. What matters is total violent crime rate. Great Britain may have less gun crime, but they sure as hell have a violent crime issue over there. Japan too.

2) Kids are a lot less likely to contract and die from cancer than an adult. Cancer mortality has plummeted. Not many kids these days die from AIDS either. It happens but not often.

They should have said "kids are 100 times more likely to be killed by guns in the US than be kidnapped by aliens!!!!"
 
The brady bunch get funds from many sources besides individual contributions. As an example, I joined AARP so I could cancel my membership and tell them because it was due to their support of brady et al. If we would look to the charities and other organizations we belong to and begin to exert pressure on them to cut off the funds to anti gun organizations we could probably do ourselves some long term good. None of these do gooders are going away soon and if we don't pay attention to them they will be like a bunch of termites in a nice home, ignore at your own risk.
 
Same plea from our side of the fence, are both sides being fleeced?
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller
As our staff and I watched the oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact our gun rights not only today, but in the future...

...from future legal challenges to other gun bans to oppressive state anti-gun laws in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and many others.

Please help us get these unconstitutional laws overturned by making as generous a contribution as you can today to the Second Amendment Foundation Legal Defense Fund.

As the Court deliberates over the next few months, your support is critical. We need to be prepared for the outcome, whatever that might be. This is no time to play wait-and-see.

A lot of the media, and misinformed citizens, think the Second Amendment should not put limits on anti-gun rights politicians and bureaucrats to enact and enforce gun restrictions that infringe on your rights. This position got a lot of attention in Tuesday's arguments.

However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support from the general public that our gun rights should have the same legal protection afforded the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. We need to stress this position to the American public before and after the decision is made in late June.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will help us strike down other unconstitutional laws that infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms so that we can protect ourselves and our families.

Even if the District of Columbia gun ban is struck down, and the Justices rule that the individual has a “right” to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged that the ruling may not be good enough to challenge all unreasonable regulations on guns that need to be overturned.

One thing is certain–we have the support of many concerned Americans and gun owners like you on our side. In a recent USA TODAY poll, a solid majority of Americans indicated they support the individual right to keep and bear arms similar to the one in question in the Supreme Court case.

While I listened to the oral arguments in the courtroom, it was hard not to feel proud that the points raised in our SAF amicus curiae brief written by Professor Nelson Lund of the George Mason School of Law were used by Justice Anthony Kennedy who is considered to be the swing vote.

We will not wait for the Justices' ruling in this case. We are, and will continue to be, on the offensive. Our voices – your voices – will make the difference!

Now is the time to contribute to the Second Amendment Foundation as we get ready during the next few months for all the vital next steps that will follow the Court's historic decision.

Please give generously today.

Sincerely yours,



Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation






P.S. Click here to read the Second Amendment Foundation's
 
Other than leukemia in kids, why would kids under 15 be threatened by death of Cancer or AIDS. Their logic is way twisted.
I think the Bradys would consider a child drowning in a bucket of water, in a household that owned firearms a gun related death.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top