Brady Campaign hoists the white flag on 2A?
From ABC News comes one of the most remarkable political concessions I've heard in my life, and a statement I'd never expected to see in three decades of Second Amendment work:
GUN CONTROL GROUP BRACES FOR COURT LOSS
The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, DC. But with the Supreme Court posed to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Vioence fully expects to lose.
We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."
"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side." If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment. "The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.
Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, "curbing large volume sales," i.e., one gun a month.
Leaving aside whether those would pass muster ... how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I'd wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a "good start" rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month -- that they'd never get beyond that -- they might well bail out.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...they won't give up they'll just keep on grinding away for now and hope for the premature death or disability of one of the more conservative justices so President Obamanation can appoint another ACLU lawyer to the court and try to get it overturned. ...and since when did public opinion matter to tyrants?
Posted by: doug in colorado at June 12, 2008 03:44 PM
AW bans are clearly unconstitutional. The missions of the militia defined in Article 1 Section 8 cannot be performed by single shot rifles. I just hope the court doesn't pull a Kelo.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 12, 2008 03:52 PM
I also believe that there have been SCOTUS rulings that the tools needed to exercise a right, such as printer's ink, can only be taxed/controlled with the same level of scrutiny used to review the right itself. I couldn't find the reference for that, but I remember reading about it.
In terms of the overall ruling, this is one time that I hope Paul Helmke is correct; if so, it would be just about the first time.
Oh oh. Helmke is always wrong. Maybe it's not a good omen that is think's he'll lose.
Of course, he also believes that a victory for gunrights in SCOTUS would be a victory for gun control. But if he's wrong about that, what would a loss for gun rights be?
Now I'm even more scared. And I have a headache.
Posted by: Steve Wright at June 12, 2008 04:42 PM
I don't know what to make of this comment by Helmke.
What makes him so sure they will lose?
Sounds to me like he's engaging in some kind of virtual "stool retention" just in case they win.
If they win, then he can engage in all sorts of orgasmic grunts of relief.
Posted by: CDR D at June 12, 2008 05:18 PM
The Brady Campaign and the rest of the gun control tyrants have been on the ropes since 9-11. Nobody wants their brand of useless legislation and much of what they have been pushing they can no longer get away with. Whether they try to defraud and outright lie with phony blogs (You know the ones run by the "gun guys"), or tell suspenseful tales of 5 year olds getting Daddy's .38; they have become pathetically outdated and useless even within their own paradigm.
It couldn't have happened to a better bunch.........long live freedom!
Posted by: Andrew in NC at June 12, 2008 06:23 PM
Wow, one has to wonder what this is going to do to the ACLU's position that the 2nd is not an individual civil right.
Posted by: Mainsail (Chris) at June 12, 2008 07:24 PM
Don't bring that wooden horse into the city! Burn it! Burn it, I say.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 12, 2008 08:39 PM
"Don't bring that wooden horse into the city! Burn it! Burn it, I say."
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 12, 2008 08:39 PM
"Oh, that poor, poor Brady Campaign. We should be nice to them."
Plus ten thousand to Letalis' comment.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at June 12, 2008 08:53 PM
"The Brady Campaign and the rest of the gun control tyrants have been on the ropes since 9-11. Nobody wants their brand of useless legislation and much of what they have been pushing they can no longer get away with."
My understanding is the the.50cal will be classified as a restricted class III weapon by the next congress. This is along the lines of, "You people don't need a gun like that." Supposedly the law is written and the fix is in.
Posted by: Jim D. at June 12, 2008 08:53 PM
I you want a perspective on what the enemy thinks about the aftermath of a pro-freedom ruling in D.C. v Heller, check out the latest rant from the psycho who posts at www.gunguys.com. To my great surprise that gun-hating lunatic actually talks about the ABC story Dave just brought to our attention. For those who don't care to wade through the gunguys.com crap the short version is -- the anti-gun side intends to keep pushing regardless and in spite of whatever the court may say in favor of gun rights.
Posted by: Brad at June 12, 2008 09:02 PM
The Supreme Court will deep six Washington DC's gun control laws, probably by a 7-0 or even a unanimous decision. Mr. Helmke and the Brady Campaign will fight on for more gun control, and they will probably be funded by the Joyce Foundation to do so.
Gun control advocates will view themselves as modern day abolitionists fighting the good fight against what they consider an abomination in the Constitution. The only problem for the gun control advocates is that those fighting for the abolition of slavery actually had a good cause. Mr. Helmke does not.
Posted by: David E. Young at June 12, 2008 09:37 PM
"probably be funded by the Joyce Foundation to do so."
man, there's STILL going to be money in gun control after this?
well what the hell am i doing trying to actually better the world in scientific research?!
sign me up so i can send gun control fliers to al-qaeda and the crips!
Posted by: jon at June 13, 2008 08:47 AM
I have heard and read is several places that the Brady Campaign has never been very successful in raising money through donations and that most if not all of their funding comes from the Joyce Foundation. If so, that means they will always have lots of money to play with because the Joyce is fabulously wealthy and just as rabidly anti-gun as Brady.
As if we didn't already know, Helmke's statements show that hating people who own guns and trying any way possible to hurt them is the real agenda, not reducing crime or gun violence.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at June 13, 2008 08:51 AM
I don't understand why they would say such a thing with less than 2 weeks before we have the actual Heller decision. Makes no sense...
Posted by: Jim at June 13, 2008 11:09 AM
I think the gun control advocates are just trying to soften the blow of what will be a devastating defeat to their movement. I'm sure they are worried about their fundraising base drying up as a result.
They are trying the old "move along, nothing to see here" approach to their pending loss in a landmark decision regarding one of the most hotly contested issues of our time.
The left can't get away with saying that the Constitution says "gay marriage" and "abortion" and not individual gun rights - and they know it. The intellectual dishonesty of such a positon is too much....even for them.
Posted by: Tom at June 13, 2008 11:44 AM
And we all know who sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002, don't we?
Posted by: Bill Twist at June 13, 2008 12:08 PM
I think we should be careful not to be too confident. I don't think anyone is expecting a sweeping decision in Heller. Its probably going to be very narrow and not give us too much. I think we'll "win" but the question is what will we win.
From what I have been reading, yesterday SCOTUS overturned 50 years of case law on enemy POWs and gave them the right to petition for habeas corpus. People are saying heller is going to be a landmark decision, but BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH may be bigger and more important. They seem to have said, even in their own decision, that they were creating a new right, or extending a right, or something.
If they are willing to create, find, extend - whatever - rights, they are willing to lose a few as well. We already know where Stephens will be.
We also need to watch for hints about whether any win would be incorporated in future cases. Is the 2nd Amendment "necessary for an ordered system of liberty" or whatever the heck the standard is now?
Unless the Brady bunch knows something we don't (which I admit is possible) I think they jumped the gun.
Posted by: Jim at June 13, 2008 12:20 PM
Who are the specific nuts behind gunguys.com? When I first got the the site, the name and the visuals initially had me thinking I'd found one of our own. So, who has put on the false face for that site? Anyone know?
Posted by: AMB at June 13, 2008 03:20 PM
>>>I think we should be careful not to be too confident. I don't think anyone is expecting a sweeping decision in Heller. Its probably going to be very narrow and not give us too much. I think we'll "win" but the question is what will we win.
A "Pyrrhic" victory, is what I would guess. They'll try to please everyone, and end up pleasing no one. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: CDR D at June 13, 2008 04:11 PM
From memory, I recall that gunguys.com is the effort of some low-rent 'comedian' who recieves his funding from the Joyce Foundation.
I just googled, Who are the gun.guys.com?
And I found a phone number for the gunguns.com site, 312-474-0461. Then I googled the phone number, and I found this link...
The comments there turns up the a name, if you can call it that, of "Gonzo Shexnayder". So I googled that name...googled again the spelling variant "Gonzo Schexnayder" and found this...
Posted by: Brad at June 14, 2008 03:51 PM
Brad, thanks for that info. The fact that someone maintains a web site and blog and hides his/her name so much says something about how much anyone should pay attention to his/her comments. ... Sort of like writing on the bathroom walls.
Posted by: AMB at June 14, 2008 04:22 PM