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

The last paragraph of their press release is so full of Obama it's beneath comment.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I did not know carring a firearm has a environmental impact.

Maybe we should all sue helmke & brady bunch for slander for calling us "dangerous people."

Maybe we should all sue helmke & brady bunch for slander for calling us "dangerous people."

Click to expand...

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

Numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

All the more reason to carry.

Just more brady bunch BS.

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.

Fine I'll CC an 8 shot revolver in the park...

Brady retards!

Don't you need standing in order to sue? How does this org have any standing in this case?

They're out of control now

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??

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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

The scary thing isn't that the bradys aren't above lying, the scary thing is that people believe that crap

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.

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?

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 ) 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

Treo, not a step too far IMO. You're right.

"Dangerous?"

Should I be insulted or flattered?

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

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...

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.

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

Wow, when Paul Helmke talks about Florida having one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, this is actually a factual statement.

Click to expand...

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.