Author: Sebastian

There was some discussion on Facebook among gun blogger folks about this article, which shows that Colin Goddard has made the leap to the MAIG train:

He’s transformed the traumatic experience into a drive to action. He is now a senior policy advocate for Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a national, bipartisan coalition of mayors, founded in 2006. The organization’s central mission is to keep illegal guns out of dangerous hands.

Previously, Colin Goddard was Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs for the Brady Campaign. This is further evidence that there’s a great deal of shake-up continuing to happen within the Brady organization. Before Sandy Hook, finances at the Brady Campaign weren’t exactly peachy. which you can even see on this summary from Foundation Center:

They had lost, or let go, some of their long time employees, including Dennis Henigan, and appeared to be starting to use the Brady Center for a lifeboat for those that remained. Colin Goddard, given that he was in the legislative arm of the Brady Campaign, really wouldn’t have any place in a 501(c)(3), which are much more limited in their ability to fund political activity.

Now we are able to access the Form 990s where the impact of the Sandy Hook massacre can be seen. See their 2012 Form 990 to understand what I’m speaking of. The 2012 990 shows a massive uptick in fundraising. I’d be willing to bet that Brady raised most of that amount in the period between December 14th and the end of the year, because they didn’t really have time to spend any of it. The Brady Campaign income increased by 2MM in 2012, but their spending had actually decreased. It looks, in fact, like Sandy Hook saved the Brady Campaign from ruin. We’ll have to wait for the 2013 990 to find out whether the Brady Campaign spent any of that windfall, or whether they pocked it to keep the outfit going a few more years.

The Brady Center, their 501(c)(3) entity, also did better in 2012, but not nearly as dramatically as the Brady Campaign. The Center only did about 1MM more in revenue for 2012, and again, I suspect most of that came between December 14th and the end of 2012. Again, they were positioning themselves to reduce spending in the center that year as well.

If the Brady folks are smart, they would have spent most of 2013 sitting on that money, trying to keep spending down, to keep the organization afloat for a few more years. It will be interesting to see 2013 and 2014 numbers, when they are filed, to see if contributions and other revenues from both the Brady Campaign and Brady Center returned to their normal levels, or even continued declining. It’s been pretty clear to me that to whatever extent there is a future for gun control, it rests with the Bloomberg funded efforts, and not the Brady organization. Brady is now, at best, a second string player in the gun control movement. The ultimate question is whether they’ll find a few foundational patrons to keep them alive as a shell of their former selves, much like what has happened with the Violence Policy Center, who did not get nearly the windfall from Sandy Hook in 2012 as other groups. To some degree, I have to wonder if some of the bigger financiers of the gun control movement are trying to stave off long time stalwarts of the movement from dying out, for fear the media stories will ruin the movement as a whole. The next three years will give us a much clearer picture of what the post-Sandy-Hook gun control movement looks like financially.

He was quoted in the ABA law seminar just one post ago, and now I find Prof. Chemerinsky in the OC Register. Now keep in mind this was a law professor that was being sold as a legal expert on this topic:

California law generally prohibits individuals from carrying concealed weapons. Such laws are common throughout the United States.

Excuse me? This isn’t true in California, and it’s not true at all in the rest of the country. A total prohibition was not the issue in Peruta, it was the interpretation of what constituted “good cause” to apply for a carry license. Illinois remained the last hold-out on the issue for several years, and they recently started allowing licensed concealed carry when the 7th circuit court of appeals struck down the prohibition. How can an “expert” on the Second Amendment not know this?

From 1791 until 2008, the Supreme Court always had held that the Second Amendment means what it says and that it protects only a right to have firearms for purposes of “militia” service.

Name the case where the Supreme Court said this? There isn’t one. Even the Miller Court did not go this far. I’m not going to rehash all this, because all the relevant scholarship on the matter was presented to the Heller court, and we prevailed. This is now settled law, and Chermerinsky is on the other side of it.

Moreover, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court clearly indicated that laws prohibiting concealed weapons are constitutional. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, used laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons as an example of the type of regulations that are permissible under the Second Amendment.

Read Heller. Please dear God would you people read the f**king opinion honestly? In Heller, the issue of concealed weapons was discussed several times, and every time in the context of the state having the power to regulate the manner of carry. In every one of those cases, concealed carry was allowed to be prohibited because open carry was the more socially acceptable method of carry, and was readily available to people “carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” In Heller, a right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home was assumed. The other side continually cherry picks a few sentences out of the decision without any willingness to consider the decision as a whole. Unfortunately for us, there have been plenty of federal courts that have all too willingly embraced this cherry picking approach.

In the ABA Journal: How to tackle gun violence without violating 2nd Amendment rights? Legal leaders share strategies. Let me fix that for you: “How to tackle gun violence by nibbling at the Second Amendment around the edges. Anti-gun leaders share strategies.” It shows how delusional the other side is:

The challenge of crafting a legal response to gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights was tackled by the next panel. Juliet Leftwich, legal director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that public revulsion over the 2012 Newtown, Conn., tragedy, in which a gun-wielding assailant killed 20 children and seven other adults, may have reversed a 30-year trend of weakening gun regulation.

Really? You passed new laws in a few states where you always had the power to burn us any time you generally wanted. The only real pickup was Colorado, and that started a backlash that would effectively kill the gun control movement post-Newtown. And even if the states friendly to gun control, they failed in New Jersey, and they failed in California. There’s such a thing as making lemonade from lemons, but there’s a fine line between that and outright delusions.

Chermerinsky noted that in general, courts tend to uphold laws regulating guns. “I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions that have struck down gun regulations,” he said.

It’s not a numbers game. We can lose all decade long in the lower courts, but if we win key appellate cases, that has real impact. Illinois now issues concealed carry licenses, and the first are being mailed out as we speak. That was a direct result of the 7th Circuit ruling. California and Hawaii are inching ever closer to shall-issue due to a major win at in the 9th Circuit. Sure, we haven’t one in every circuit, but Illinois, California and Hawaii going shall-issue is what Joe Biden would call a “big f**king deal” and there’s honestly no other way you can spin that. The gun control people might win more cases, but we’re winning some very important ones.

UPDATE: I’d note that they held their conference at the National Constitution Center. I’ve reported on this organization before and their questionable stances on the Second Amendment. I won’t necessarily ding them for hosting an event, but since NRA has been known to do legal seminars in Philadelphia, I look forward to the National Constitution Center hosting one of those as well, just as a demonstration they are open to the view of the Second Amendment accepted by the Supreme Court.