Category: Anti-Gun Folks

It’s good to see the Brady Campaign’s young, energetic new face is learning their old misdirections and deceptions like a seasoned expert:

“In 2004, 11,344 people in the U.S. were killed by gun violence,” said Goddard, who was an ROTC student at Virginia Tech. “In New Zealand, it was five.”

Yes, and the U.S. has 300 million people, and New Zealand has 4 million. But it looks more dramatic when you don’t use rates.

Goddard bought automatic 9-mm. handguns and an AK-47, which, if he hadn’t given it to police, could be headed for your neighborhood.

He gave it to police because he would have been committing a felony had he transported it back to his home state or transferred to it someone else without going through a federally licensed dealer.

“Most of the criminals in New York City don’t get their guns in New York,” says Goddard, who’s in town for the screening. “They go down South, where there aren’t many regulations.”

It’s all totally legal – and that’s what Goddard wants to stop. He’s pushing a bill before Congress to require background checks on private sales.

Except that buying a gun out of state and bringing it back to your home state, or transferring it to someone else who is not an FFL, is a felony already. Or are we using Joan Peterson’s standard that if it happens, then it must be legal.

I would think the Brady Campaign would be all over this guy. He’s a poster child for both their “Terror Loophole” legislation and their “Gun Show Loophole” legislation, even though he doesn’t seem to be on the watch list, could legally purchase firearms anyway, and didn’t seem to buy guns at gun shows. You know, just like Virginia Tech, which also had nothing to do with gun shows, became a rallying cry for closing the so-called “loophole.” That seems to fit the formula, find someone sufficiently scary, who your pet legislation would have done nothing to stop, then say it’s an example of why we need said pet legislation.

This time the Mayor of White Plains, for domestic abuse. Very glad we have an organization dedicated to fighting the scourge of illegal mayors.

Dennis Henigan finds this self-congratulatory article appealing? Both sides are guilty of the exact same things they accuse the other side of, they just manifest themselves in different ways. People are, for the most part, irrational emotional beings. As much as some might want to claim their side is full of thoughtful, rational, people, can I promise you if your movement isn’t composed of Vulcans, that’s not the case.

Anyone curious as to where Americans United for Safe Streets is getting and spending it’s money need to look no further than here. Glenn Reynolds has noted they are an astroturf group. He’s not kidding. Look at the donation numbers and tell me that group isn’t Mike Bloomberg donating his money and doling it out to favored New York and DC based consultant and advertising firms. Look who else is giving too. Abby Spangler, 500 dollars. Colin Goddard’s Dad, 200 dollars. Josh Horwitz, 200 dollars.

What faith and dedication these people have in their cause! Mayor Mike is willing to donate serious money, but the rest of the gun control intelligentsia? I think it’s a testament to their lack of faith, I could raise more money for our cause by providing a link to NRA’s political efforts here, and encouraging people to donate 30 bucks. I have to question whether Mayor Mike is the only one who has any faith in the future of gun control. And even then, I’m pretty sure half a million to Bloomberg is the equivalent to change under the sofa cushion for most of us. We win because our third stringers are more dedicated than their first stringers.

The Bradys are beginning their bid to win back the support of the Democratic Party by arguing that NRA was hapless to save endorsed Democrats this election. I will retort back that this election was not about gun control or gun rights. In races where gun control groups tried to press the issue, they were defeated severely, such as in Pennsylvania, and in Virginia.

I said last night that the Bradys were sure to react to the elections by declaring victory, just like with Heller and McDonald. Here’s the declaration. Dave Kopel takes a more serious look at how this election fared for the Second Amendment. Last night may not have been the best of nights for NRA’s win-percentage, but it was still a good night for the Second Amendment.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, suits related to negligence are still allowed to proceed. The Brady case is crafted as to attempt fall into that category of permitted lawsuits. You can find the complaint here. Reading it over, I’d be very surprised if Badgers Attorney doesn’t try to use PLCAA to dismiss this suit. In the case in question, a drug addict bought a firearm that he later gave to a person who shot two police officers. The suit seems to hinge on the fact that he was a prohibited person because he was a drug addict, and that somehow Badger should have known this. You see language in the complaint about Badger being a “public nuisance,” which is precisely the kind of lawsuit PLCAA was meant to quash.

I’m not going to comment on Badgers business practices in general, because I’m not familiar with the store. Maybe some local people could comment. There are certainly stores out there that have a bad reputation even among shooters. But I’m struck by how much the Brady suit reads like a social policy paper rather than a civil complaint. It is my opinion that this lawsuit should be squashed under PLCAA. Under the PCLAA standard:

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment’ means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

The Bradys are essentially arguing in the complaint that the types of firearms that Badger sold to the drug addict (evil assault weapon) plus the number of guns he bought over the course of a week (two), and the fact that he was an admitted drug addict, should have indicated he was intending to use them for criminal purposes. Because of these facts, the sale was negligent.

In short, this is an attempt by the Brady Center to blow a hole a mile wide in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with this case. Regardless of whether or not Badger is a responsible operation or not, it’s important for the gun rights community as a whole that PLCAA squashes this suit. If it doesn’t, PLCAA will be rendered almost entirely ineffective, and you can bet this won’t be the last shop sued. Failing to get legislation rationing firearms, and banning assault weapons legislatively, once again we see the Brady Center trying to accomplish with lawyers what it couldn’t accomplish with lobbyists.