Thanks from Paul Helmke

Looks like Paul Helmke doesn’t have any problems with the Bush Administration DOJ filing. Helmke knows a gift horse when he sees it, and isn’t going to look this one in the mouth. The Brady Campaign has everything to gain and nothing to lose by fawning over this brief. They won’t mention that six years ago they were furious about DOJ adopting the individual rights view, which is identical to the one they are now applauding.

When your back is against a wall, you have nothing to lose. Bush has offered Brady two things with his brief. The first is a way out of their nightmare. An individual rights ruling that means nothing is something Brady can work with. Remanding back to District Court will likely preserve most of the DC ban, despite what the DOJ may actually think about it.  It’s not likely to cause state laws to be threatened in the circuit courts.   Incorporation will be far less likely.

Furthermore, Paul Helmke is aware that gun owners are furious with Bush over the brief, and that this situation puts NRA in a real pickle for 2008. With the gun vote furious at Bush, and with McCain or Romney the likely nominee at this point, NRA is in a very poor position heading into this election. That’s the icing on the cake for the Brady Campaign. Paul Helmke isn’t stupid folks, and what you’re witnessing here is a brilliant political move on the part of the Brady Campaign, compliments of the backstabber in the Oval Office.

4 thoughts on “Thanks from Paul Helmke”

  1. Our best hope is divided Federal government, focus on the statewide/local level and grow them up the way we want ’em. Until then we are screwed for awhile, patching up the holes until we have respectors of liberty in office.

  2. At least other side gets to worry about incrementalism and the slippery slope for a change.

    We are never going to the government to rule in a single shot that private citizens have a right to firearms that cannot be infringed. However, I am hopeful that incrementalism might work in our favor on this issue.

    The politicians still debate the “sporting purposes” side of equation, but we had some candidates come out with solid 2A positions. It looks like the tide is turning, even if it is just a little bit.

Comments are closed.