Sarah Brady Aghast, $5 worth.
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
- Status
Cesiumsponge
Member
I translated that as:
"give me money, no one is listening to me any more!"
"give me money, no one is listening to me any more!"
ConstitutionCowboy
member
From The Article said:
We learn two things here. One: That "Activist Judge" can mean one who actively supports the Constitution; and Two: Brady is more concerned for her laws than the people those laws strip self defense from.
Woody
If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
Blackfork
Member
Sarah Brady has a Blog....the comments are currently open.
Linked off www.SayUncle.com. Uncle ought to be on your favorites anyway.
Be nice. She's just an old woman.
So far the comments are 73 think she is a lying idiot. One is uncommited.
Linked off www.SayUncle.com. Uncle ought to be on your favorites anyway.
Be nice. She's just an old woman.
So far the comments are 73 think she is a lying idiot. One is uncommited.
mountainclmbr
Member
Rosie O'Brady is all about herself. Take the position that will cause the press and liberal politicians to fawn over you. Try to sensationalize, distort, lie. Bring POWER to your supporters and live off the scraps. Who cares if law-abiding commoners get crimminalized by your acts.
LawBot5000
Member
That 60 years of precedent is based off of misunderstanding or rejection of the holding of Miller in the early 40s (See US v Cases 131 F2d 916 (1st Cir 1942)rejecting Milller's rule as "outdated" ) that has been compounded by later courts applying the bad decisions instead of reading Miller themselves. In fact, the principle cited by the collective rights cases wasnt decided in Miller at all. Rather, that model was implicitly rejected to arrive at the conclusion of Miller.
Consider that Miller was presented only on the govt's brief and that brief advocated a collective rights model, YET:
1) the court didnt adopt the collective rights model in any form whatsoever. This question was certainly being argued before the court and they were at liberty to accept this argument. But they didnt.
2) the court didnt reject the appeal for lack of standing, which it would have done if the 2nd wasnt an individual right- see Scott v Sanford for a classic case of someone lacking standing to assert a right (an atrocious decision for other reasons, but it illustrates the concept). Note that the Miller decision implicitly accepts that the appellee (defendant) had standing to assert the right that he did on his appeal.
3) the court said the case turned on whether the shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment as being militia equipment. How could the scope of the right turn on that question if the right didnt pertain to individuals? The court wouldn't have bothered exploring the issue at all if individuals were not protected by the 2nd amendment.
4) the court remanded to find more facts. It didnt reject the contention that it was an individual right and it didnt reject the contention that military weapons were protected- it only admitted it didnt know if the sawed off shotgun was a miltia weapon and remanded for the lower court to do some research.
In short, we have 60 years of decisions that cite to a misunderstanding of Miller. There is absolutely no reason why those decisions should stand.
Consider that Miller was presented only on the govt's brief and that brief advocated a collective rights model, YET:
1) the court didnt adopt the collective rights model in any form whatsoever. This question was certainly being argued before the court and they were at liberty to accept this argument. But they didnt.
2) the court didnt reject the appeal for lack of standing, which it would have done if the 2nd wasnt an individual right- see Scott v Sanford for a classic case of someone lacking standing to assert a right (an atrocious decision for other reasons, but it illustrates the concept). Note that the Miller decision implicitly accepts that the appellee (defendant) had standing to assert the right that he did on his appeal.
3) the court said the case turned on whether the shotgun was protected by the 2nd amendment as being militia equipment. How could the scope of the right turn on that question if the right didnt pertain to individuals? The court wouldn't have bothered exploring the issue at all if individuals were not protected by the 2nd amendment.
4) the court remanded to find more facts. It didnt reject the contention that it was an individual right and it didnt reject the contention that military weapons were protected- it only admitted it didnt know if the sawed off shotgun was a miltia weapon and remanded for the lower court to do some research.
In short, we have 60 years of decisions that cite to a misunderstanding of Miller. There is absolutely no reason why those decisions should stand.
bogie
Member
Guys, maybe we're doing this in the wrong way...
Can anyone pull what their annual donations/budget amounts to?
I mean, they _are_ some sorta foundation, right? Gotta be some sorta paper trail. I don't know from that sorta stuff, but I'm sure someone here does.
Can anyone pull what their annual donations/budget amounts to?
I mean, they _are_ some sorta foundation, right? Gotta be some sorta paper trail. I don't know from that sorta stuff, but I'm sure someone here does.
Lucky
Member
Anonymous Soros, I mean donor.
chemist308
Member
Do the opposite!
Let's counter-act this. Everyone donate $5 to either the NRA or Gun Owners of America (GOA).
Let's counter-act this. Everyone donate $5 to either the NRA or Gun Owners of America (GOA).
LawBot5000
Member
I'm already paid up for the next several decades.
bogie
Member
Riii---iiight...
HOW CAN I FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY TAKE IN AND SPEND?
Focus, people. Believe me, I know it can be kinda hard sometimes...
Oleg - if you see this, I'm thinking of an image... Big organization, lots of individuals donating contrasted with another big organization, with a few multimillionaires donating... Ideas?
HOW CAN I FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY TAKE IN AND SPEND?
Focus, people. Believe me, I know it can be kinda hard sometimes...
Oleg - if you see this, I'm thinking of an image... Big organization, lots of individuals donating contrasted with another big organization, with a few multimillionaires donating... Ideas?
WoofersInc
Member
I still want to know how the Brady Campaign can be a tax deductable organization while all og the gun rights groups do not have this status.
Rumble
Member
WoofersInc, if the donations are actually going to the Brady Campaign--which, as far as I know, is a 501(c)(4) organization--they are not deductible. Contributions to 501(c)(4) orgs are only deductible if they're volunteer fire departments, or veterans' organizations with at least 90% of the membership composed of veterans.
At least, that's what Wikipedia tol' me.
However, these donations are not to the Brady Campaign, which has been fined in the past by the FEC for claiming no political expenditures. These donations are going to the "Brady Gun Law Defense Fund," which is probably a 501(c)(3) organization.
At least, that's what Wikipedia tol' me.
However, these donations are not to the Brady Campaign, which has been fined in the past by the FEC for claiming no political expenditures. These donations are going to the "Brady Gun Law Defense Fund," which is probably a 501(c)(3) organization.
Dain Bramage
Member
Would donations of $0.02 cost more to process than they are worth?
MilsurpShooter
Member
Why is it they're right wing activists if they ignore 60 years of precedent but they're not if they go against what the constitution says?
- Status