Brady Campaign Backs Down from Promises to Anti-Gun Pols

Pennsylvania Flag

It would seem that the Brady Campaign staffers were making funding promises to Pennsylvania officials that they may have had no intention of keeping.

Back when Pennsylvania municipalities were regularly passing gun control ordinances, several cities only went through with the measures that violated state preemption laws because the Brady Campaign/Center promised, via MAIG and CeasefirePA representatives, to pay for the defense of those ordinances if the cities were sued.

Well, now the threat of lawsuits is looming and the Brady Campaign is telling the media that they never made such promises by claiming that the person who made the promises wasn’t really speaking for them.

While the local Fox affiliate dug up city records from Lancaster and Erie that showed they made those promises, we recalled another instance in Radnor. Except, Radnor lawmakers demanded the promise in writing. From Sebastian’s 2010 report on that meeting:

Commissioners seemed skeptical when CeaseFirePA mentioned that the Brady Campaign would pick up the tab for any lawsuits against the ordinance, and indicated they’d want it in writing. It’s my opinion the Bradys will be very reluctant to put anything into writing, so I think that’s a strategy to use going forward. Get your local politicians to demand that. If the Bradys don’t deliver, that’s another point, and it may start the politicians wondering whether the promise is worth anything.

It seems that now we have the proof that the Brady promises on this issue really were worthless.

In Lancaster, the pledge came from Max Nacheman who represented MAIG and Brady at the time and would later represent CeasefirePA. In Radnor, it appears that Commissioner Elaine Schaefer called the Brady Campaign herself and got the pledge that the group would defend the town. So the Brady Campaign is now trying to claim that the exact same promise made in at least 3 different cities via at least 2 different people, was really just some random miscommunication?

Yeah, that’s totally believable.

It would seem that town officials are now learning what we’ve been trying to tell them for years – you can’t believe the false promises the anti-gunners tell you when they are trying to get their agenda passed. They need something to call a “win,” and if your budgets take a beating due to legal expenses because they told you to do something illegal, they don’t care. It’s still a “win” for their agenda even as taxpayers lose.

15 thoughts on “Brady Campaign Backs Down from Promises to Anti-Gun Pols”

  1. The funny thing is, I suspect that this promise-breaking and promise-denying isn’t something that the Brady Campaign wants to do, but something they are doing out of necessity. I suspect that they don’t have the funds, and that they know that they can’t raise sufficient funds as well.

    Perhaps at the time they made those promises, they had the funds to back up those promises…but I can’t help but wonder if they were bluffing, even then…

    1. Actually, they probably have more cash now then they did in 2010. When we heard the commissioner and CeasefirePA reps making the promise at the Radnor meeting, we were floored. Sebastian recalls even a pro-gun person arguing that there’s no way that’s possible because they didn’t have the funds to cover that many legal defense funds and lawsuits. That’s one reason the township minutes note that the commissioner was ordered to get the promise in writing and file it with the town manager. I don’t know whether that ever happened, but it was clear that they were concerned about that being an empty promise.

      1. It would be interesting to file a Right to Know request to see if the commissioner followed through and any resulting communication about that.

        It would also be interesting to explore what sort of agency relationship existed between Nacheman/CeasefirePA and Brady. Under law of agency, the principal could be bound by the actions/promises of the agent. If someone wanted to push it.

  2. Since nacheman was a rep for maig why doesn’t bloomburg give the cities access to his couch cushions, the spare change would cover the legal costs. He doesn’t want to be seen loosing another one and the bad press that comes with it. The big problem Mom’s demand and everytown have; they are trying to force us to live in their world while we are just trying to live our lives and welcoming them into ours if the choose to do so.

    1. I don’t think Bloomberg wants to be in the business of court fights. He’s never shown any significant interest there. Even though Nacheman was part of the team making promises, I only highlighted him and the Commissioner because it shows that that Brady Campaign appeared to be making the “we’ll pay for it” pledge via multiple people from multiple groups.

      1. Bloomberg would rather try things in the court of public opinion, where the rules are more like guidelines

      1. I particularly like how he’s “not anti-gun” because he collects bicycles, and so he has some insight into how gun collectors feel.

  3. If they do have the money, let them waste it fighting state law on behalf of cities. They’ll still lose, and we can point and laugh. More than we already do.

  4. I wonder if the cities have a case for failure to perform on a contract. After all Radnor at least had the promise in writing . Otherwise a criminal prosecution can be done for fraud.

    That would be nice if they faced criminal charges for fraud

    1. Much as we would like to see this, I doubt it would happen.

      The problem is that it relies on the prosecuting authority in a left-leaning polity to charge a leftist with a crime. Given this, and the fact that the Commonwealth’s AG is currently under indictment for her own malfeasance, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Comments are closed.