Dave Hardy has further insight into the ABC News article from yesterday that stated the Brady Campaign was bracing for a loss on the Second Amendment:
Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, “curbing large volume sales,” i.e., one gun a month.
Leaving aside whether those would pass muster … how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I’d wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a “good start” rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month — that they’d never get beyond that — they might well bail out.
I would say a lot of their constituency is in it in order to ban guns. You might get people casually saying “Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable,” to a lot of their agenda, but the folks who care enough to send money and get involved either hate guns, or are scared to death of them. Either way, if the courts take their eventual goal off the table, I don’t see how they stay in it, unless the Brady’s want to start a movement to repeal the second amendment (good luck with that one).
If I were Peter Hamm or Paul Helmke, I’d be thinking there surely has to be other places in the D.C. establishment where they can put their skills and talents to more effective and creative use.
UPDATE: More here and here.
