« Tightening British gun laws? | Main | Genocide and arms »
Am I the only one to see the incongruity here?
The Sacramento Bee reports that (in the wake of the California Dep't of Justice backing some rather lamebrained ideas for putting serial numbers on cartridges), the Folsom Shooting Club refused to let on-duty DOJ officers shoot on its range, and "We're not questioning their right to do this, but who's next?" said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."
The Brady Campaign, complaining about lack of shooting opportunities? Isn't that a bit like the Womens' Christian Temperance Union hosting a kegger?
2 Comments | Leave a comment
The club's letter to the CA DOJ can be found at http://www.sacvalley.org/SacVal/Lttr_to_DOJ.html
Brady's response is at http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=661
Note that Jim Brady questioned the patriotism of somebody he disagrees with:
“What’s next – should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined,” said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign.
Where's the outrage?!
PS - I have absolutely no idea why this comment is centered when I preview it. Could somebody please fix this?
My hat is off to the gun club, if they are making this stand for the reasons I suspect. Let California pass all the anti-2A laws they want; and let them be made pariahs by the rest of the shooting community. Ronnie Barrett is on the right track. I would like to see Ruger, Colt, et al., do the same thing: refuse to sell or repair any weapon for any jurisdiction, state or local, in Cali. Darned if I wouldn't buy another gun from them just to help make up any loss they might incur.