Brady Center on D.C.'s appeal...

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bumm

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
546
Location
small town Iowa
I got this from Sarah Brady today...

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced this week that the District will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia — an assault on D.C. gun laws and one that could threaten every city's gun laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide in about three months whether they will hear the case and each month brings a tidal wave of work for the Brady Center to defend our nation's gun laws. We must be geared-up to fight this battle. Simply put: we need your support today!
Please click here to make a tax-deductible commitment of $25 or more. Your gift today will help us prepare for the incredibly large amount of work that needs to be conducted to hold off this assault on our nation's gun laws.
You'll recall, in a 2-1 decision this past spring, a federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.'s long-standing restrictions on handguns based on a twisted view of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while ignoring more than 60 years of precedent — a decision that endangers America's gun laws coast-to-coast.
This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to save America's gun laws by building a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.
Your tax-deductible gift of $25 or more today is critical to our success!
We must prepare for a long hard battle. So much of what we have worked for in the past and everything we're currently working on could be destroyed by the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges who chose to ignore more than 60 years of precedent in order to help the gun lobby accomplish in the courts what it has been unable to accomplish in Congress.
Please respond today. Thank you

Myself, I LIKE that "heinous decision by right-wing activist judges." They aren't gonna see MY "$25 or more."
Marty
 
I actually like judges who'll ignore precedent from time to time. No one ever said that judges in the past had divine inspiration when they passed their verdict; they could (and often are) wrong. Remember, there was plenty of precedent that was counter to the Brown vs. Board of Ed. of Topeka, and still they overturned it, and I don't know one sane person who wishes that they didn't (I certainly don't, and I'm not even sane).
 
an assault on D.C. gun laws and one that could threaten every city's gun laws
Click to expand...

That's the first lie. A decision that DC has to allow private handgun ownership with "reasonable restrictions" would only impact the gun laws of a few cities in Illinois. No other city has gun laws like DC's.

A decision that DC has to allow the use of firearms for home defense would not impact any other city's gun laws; no other city bans the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges who chose to ignore more than 60 years of precedent
Click to expand...

Lie #2: there is no precedent. The Supreme Court has never heard a 2nd Amendment case of this kind. A bunch of scholarly papers invented to justify laws like the DC ban is all there is, and there's plenty of contradictory scholarship as well.

SCOTUS did find that the Federal Government could regulate certain specs of certain firearms (shotgun barrel length, bayonet lugs, etc.), but that's nothing resembling an outright ban on defensive firearms in the home.

"Activist judges" tends to apply -- on either right or left -- to judges who make decisions that do not have a direct Constitutional basis, not decisions that apply specific enumerated Constitutional rights. This is true even when people don't like the outcome. Kelo was believed to be wrongly decided by many; however, this was not considered an "activist" decision. "Activist" is also not used to describe judges who decide to overturn precedent -- if there is any -- when they find that precedent doesn't follow the Constitution or other laws, or when they find that an apparent precedent doesn't apply to the case at hand.
 
I think it's tax-deductible because it counts as "charity". It's still disturbing. And now that I think about it, ArmedBear is right, there has never been a 2A case that has been brought to the Supreme Court before this (and, quite frankly, let's keep it that way!).
 
Ho-hum.

So, once again the anti liberty fiends from hell that kiss the devil's hand are attempting to generate revenue by foisting humbugs on a gullible
public.
 
"So much of what we have worked for in the past and everything we're currently working on could be destroyed by the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges..."

Now that idea truly cheers me up for the weekend.

Is that a tacit promise that if they lose Brady will fold up their tents and go away? Or maybe move their three remaining employees to Chicago or New York and take a job with the city streets and sanitation department, cleaning up after parades for Daley or Bloomberg?
 
I don't mind watching what could be the death throws of a rotten, oppressive, and twisted campaign that failed to deprive citizens of their rights. Shameful joy--you bet.

And it is fun to watch their collective rhetoric sputter, misfire, and go clunk.
 
Now wait...

Hasn't the Brady Bunch been saying lately that they have no problem with people keeping guns at home for self-defense?

How, exactly, then, do they object to this challenge to DC's law that bans just that?
 
Because they don’t want guns on the streets, except for law enforcement, military or themselves. Was that a rhetorical question? I think you knew the answer to that question.
 
My point is that, one way or another, they're lying.

Either they're lying about the DC case, or they're lying about their real intentions regarding gun bans. They can't be telling the truth about both.
 
This will be another good topic for the "Debunk Brady Campaign" that one of the members from Flordia is doin. "Why does the Brady Campaign have to lie?"
 
If you REALLY want to hurt Sarah Brady and her ilk, find a way to take away her tax-exempt status.
 
While there's no guarentee that our side will win this thing, all the ranting and sputtering from the gun control crowd shows that they know what the second amendment REALLY means.
Marty
 
based on a twisted view of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while ignoring more than 60 years of precedent
Click to expand...

it's twisted?

60 years of precendent is a lot? I think she forgets that the 2nd amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. So I raise her 60 years an additional 156 years in our favor.
 
ArmedBear--

I think you're definitely on to something. The wolf has officially stepped out of the sheep's clothes. This may be the first direct, official admission by the Brady Campaign that they support a complete and total ban on handguns.

Otherwise they should have no issue with the overturn so long as it continued to allow the established onerous (...err...I mean sensible) gun control laws to be implemented.
 
Ban?

(Where's that seagull graphic?)

admission by the Brady Campaign that they support a complete and total ban on handguns
Click to expand...
Hmmm.

More correctly:
admission by the Brady Campaign that they support a complete and total ban on . . . guns
Click to expand...

There. Fixed it for you.
 
Donating to the NRA is good but Robert Levy and the CATO Institute are the ones that are funding the Parker Case....donate to CATO too.
 
IMO, people are catching on to the Bradys' BS. They only have two antis posting on their blog, these days. Machine Gun Kelli, and someone who calls himself Macca. It's almost sad, in a really funny sort of way.
 
IIRC donations to the NRA-PVF are tax deductible, but donations to the NRA-ILA are not.
 
ArmedBear said:
Now wait...

Hasn't the Brady Bunch been saying lately that they have no problem with people keeping guns at home for self-defense?

How, exactly, then, do they object to this challenge to DC's law that bans just that?
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of talk around here that if DC didn't appeal, Parker's precedent opens the door to attacks on the constitutionality of the federal machine gun post-1986 ban. And I don't think you'll ever hear a Brady type that isn't opposed to civilian ownership of full-auto rifles.

But yeah, if they truly had no problem with people keeping guns at home for self-defense, they wouldn't have opposed the Parker case in the first place, so no surprise they've been lying in any case.
 
"AT RISK: The federal machine gun ban.
The NRA has long argued it violates the Second Amendment.
(god I hope the 1986 MG ban is at risk, but for some reason I think the NRA supported it after the fact hope I am wrong)
AT RISK: The Brady Law.
The gun lobby has long argued that the exercise of "constitutional rights" should not be subject to a background check.
AT RISK: The 1968 Gun Control Act,
which regulates the sale of guns by licensed dealers. The gun lobby will argue that the constitutional right to possess guns implies a right to sell them free of government regulation.
AT RISK: State licensing and registration laws.
The gun lobby will argue that individuals should not have to seek government permission to exercise a constitutional right."
 
"AT RISK: The federal machine gun ban.
The NRA has long argued it violates the Second Amendment.
(god I hope the 1986 MG ban is at risk, but for some reason I think the NRA supported it after the fact hope I am wrong)
AT RISK: The Brady Law.
The gun lobby has long argued that the exercise of "constitutional rights" should not be subject to a background check.
AT RISK: The 1968 Gun Control Act,
which regulates the sale of guns by licensed dealers. The gun lobby will argue that the constitutional right to possess guns implies a right to sell them free of government regulation.
AT RISK: State licensing and registration laws.
The gun lobby will argue that individuals should not have to seek government permission to exercise a constitutional right."
Click to expand...

Not that they don't actually give a reason why the well-deserved demise of these laws would actually be a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
What Brady is up to
Replies
14
Views
854
bumm
B
K
  • Locked
Sara's squirming
Replies
10
Views
873
Thain
T
P
  • Locked
Brady Campaign Desperate
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
A
  • Locked
FYI - Latest from the Brady Bunch
Replies
7
Views
720
Bubbles
B
L
  • Locked
Brady Campaign Worried About Effects of Heller
Replies
18
Views
2K
the pistolero
T
Back
Top