Brady on Heller outcome

Henigan does not look happy.

Good!

The decision will be what the decision will be. I hope we don't have another Kelo.

i wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to lay out a "winning hand" agenda for firearms laws at the state level, if this goes well. without a stated goal, the RKBA community tends to trigger the liberal gun-ban lobby's "political conspiracy" receptors in the human brain (we've all got em).

in trade, of course, all the existing laws would necessarily be struck down. and, as we've seen in racist and classist taxachusetts, we'd need a rule about the AG not writing ridiculous regulations designed to keep "junk guns" out of the hands of poor peop-- er. "criminals."

after all, all of us civilized apes need both our left and right hands to make the swinging leap from one tree to the next. and we've seen and understood what the left has been up to, whilst suffering a steady erosion of the 2A. but i don't believe for a second the left has any idea what the right is up to, so to speak.

in fact i think that hand has forgotten what civil rights even look like.

Perhaps they are finally discovering and just beginning to come to grips with American history. The history of our country directly contradicts everything they believe and have ever said about the Second Amendment and its meaning. In this type of situation, the truth really hurts. The reason it hurts the controllers so much is because the Second Amendment was INTENDED to prevent exactly what they seek - gun control.

If you are not familiar with my severely critical commentary on the pro-control amicus brief from the professional academic historians in the Heller case, you should read Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional at The History News Network: http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

Did I hear him use the term "activist judge"?

I only hear creationists use that when they loose in court. Is the Brady campaign lowering it's self to a bunch of pissed off Christians that can't use the government to enforce their social dogma?

Wow. The meltdown with these people continues to amuse me.

Is a leak possible? Would a sympathetic clerk or justice for that matter leak to the dark side and what would the penalty be for such.

Is there a rule about leaks???

*****

Interesting that the gun banners are belly-aching about a set up when "Miller" was precisely that.

Curious that so few even know what the Miller decision was. Three little words.

Three little words which failed to uphold NFA.

tom gunn

"Is there a rule about leaks?"

Yes, you lose any possible chance of having a legal career.

If you were on the staff, yes. But it would not surprise me unduly that somebody got a draft copy of the opinion from somewhere...the printers, an aide, or even just from some old-fashioned dumpster diving.

The only people familiar with the opinion who would be completely immune from punishment would be the justices themselves. After all, they decide what their own ethics are. The leak wouldn't have to be a direct quote of the opinion, just something said over dinner to one of your old friends of like mind from the ACLU, er, the past about,

"Well, if the basis for your belief that guns are for the militia only comes from Miller, I have had to accept and you should accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals first and foremost. Laws that infringe on that won't stand up to scrutiny and simply won't pass the test anymore. That's a WONDERFUL wine, Could I have some more, please?"

I find it really, really unlikely any substantive info was leaked, and odder still that the Brady bunch is so on about loosing before they have actually lost...

Something smells wrong.

>>>Something smells wrong.

I think so, too. There are no reasons for them to be playing the "poor me" game at this point. Basing any judgment on the oral arguments is notoriously risky. They know that.

a bird will feign a broken wing and hop away from its young, if it feels threatened by an approaching loper.

i for one would be interested to know in whose nest their egg lies.

I'm not so sure. It's an old tactic to try to immunize yourself against bad news. If you think you are winning, you don't go around talking about post-defeat strategies much.

"Perhaps they are finally discovering and just beginning to come to grips with American history."

Actually, I don't give them that much credit. Personally, I believe that they understand full well the history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree and don't mind using dishonest tactics to try and change it.

That fact that they seem very nervous about the upcoming decision encourages me.

Leak.

Most clerks probably tend to vote Democrat and thus probably have anti-gun feelings and allegiances.

So they leak information to their fellow travelers.

Has any decision by SCOTUS in recent history had such far reaching ramifications? Heller v D.C. is arguably bigger than Roe v. Wade because there is so little precedent in 2nd Amendment rulings. In terms of reversing common practices Heller v D.C. is as big as Brown v. Board of Education!

So in a case this big it really wouldn't surprise me if something somehow leaked out to the anti-gun side. I am beginning to believe that the majority may go 6 to3 or even 7 to 2! If the ruling strikes down the D.C. ban as unconstitutional such a lopsided result eviscerates anti-gun excuse making about 'conservative' or 'activist' judges.