Joe Huffman is reporting that the Brady Center is not filing a brief on either side in the McDonald case. I’m not sure what the Brady folks are thinking here, but I’m wondering if this is a sign of them being resigned to lose, and filing a brief for their own purposes rather than for legal effect.
9 thoughts on “What Are The Bradys Up To?”
Comments are closed.
Probably they can’t afford to file a brief in a losing battle. I think you need about $15,000 aside from paying the lawyer(s).
Ok, I misread what you wrote. They are still filing.
The Brady Campaign has completely collapsed as an organization, MAIG is the one we need to worry about now. If I had to guess, Brady fades away in ten to fifteen years, MAIG will draft whoever they think will be useful to them from what’s left of Brady, and Brady dissolves or maintains a token presence.
We’re the Brady Campaign.
Please pay attention to us. We’re still relevant. Really we are.
Please?
Anyone?
I assume they’re just making sure their names are on the process (like Thirdpower said–“we’re relevant!”), but know the Court’s very likely to rule to incorporate. They don’t want to support incorporation, don’t want to have to backpedal again like they did in Heller, and don’t want to stay silent. The only alternative left is to reply without saying anything.
They know that siding with Chicago’s ban is a losing proposition. Thus, I would venture to guess they will simply file a brief outlining their arguments for guns as a social cost.
Brady was successful in derailing the guns in Nat’l parks. Then they lost when Congress attacthed the amendment and was signed by Obama.
I agree that Brady believes that incorporation is going to succeed and do not want to be on the losing side. They are repositioning with restrictions rather than that the 2A doesn’t exist as pre Heller and that is doesn’t applied against the states which is pre McDonald.
The question for gun controll is where they can nibble on the fringes. Micro stamping, ammo restrictions, one a month, report stolen guns those are the avenues they have been pursuing.
That and any thing esle they dan think of.
The most onerouse restriction is to ban private sales with requirement of background check or the gun show loophole.
The green attack on lead is another.
I agree with RAH. Sure, our side may be more passionate and we have the constitution on our side but let’s not forget two things:
1. These people are pros. I can’t really blame Sarah Brady personally too much because she obviously believes this is her calling. But that’s what makes them effective. This isn’t just another issue to these people, like it is to many liberals. This is their only issue. This is simply not something they will give up, period. They may lay low for a while but they will definitely be back.
2. They don’t need restrictions to effectively make owning a gun cost prohibitive for many people. We obviously care about the RKBA but most regular gun owners don’t. It’s just something they take for granted. Everybody here knows about the $200 ATF tax stamp and it’s not the $200 that are the issue for most of us – it’s the jumping through hoops and endless paperwork for something as mundane as a SBR. Now, adjust those $200 in 1968 money to 2009 and that comes out to be just a bit more than $1230! And all it takes is a couple of changes that may easily get passed as “reasonable gun control measures” in the aftermath of the next terrorist attack – oh, sorry, I guess we’re not using that word any more since we can’t call a spade a spade these days.
Folks, let’s not underestimate these people. They have been doing this for decades.
Won’t incorporation make it easier to pass reasonable national gun control measures? Suddenly, that gunshow loophole starts looking a lot smaller….