PDA

View Full Version : Sounds like the Bradys are scared by the truth.


cchristrules60
03-15-2007, 10:54 AM
I acidently subscrided to the Brady Buch website. Oops. I thought that you guys would like this.


Dear Stephen,

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,
Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com

P.S. Your gift will be worth double when you give to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.

If this e-mail was forwarded to you, click here to sign up for your own StoptheNRA alerts


You can also mail a check to:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

p99guy
03-15-2007, 11:37 AM
yep I just got that one....I wish they would spend their time ,money, effort, and anger

over other issues in this world like stopping the modern day slave trade, looking out for the poor and hungry, and mental heath system reform, driving under the influance, etc...instead they cause the courts and gunowners untold aggrevation and expense while never addressing the social issues
like why little Johnny Kills(to start with).

kamo
03-15-2007, 11:53 AM
Illegal Immigration would be a nice place to start.

jmz5
03-15-2007, 11:56 AM
Yes it would.

Medula Oblongata
03-15-2007, 12:25 PM
"...all courts save one in the last 70 years have ruled that guns are not the right of the individual..but a collective right..." [paraphrased]

Ummmmm.... What court decisions would those be? Ther are MORE decisions that firearms are an inalienable right than there are to the contrary. I wish these jokers could be held liable for their lies..

walter34payton2002
03-16-2007, 01:28 AM
My god, there really is no doubt about it....they just use scare tactics and nothing else. It makes me sick to my stomach that there are people out there who don't know any better and really think they are doing something good and believe this crap. Preying on ignorance, telling lies, and using scare tactics.....PURE PROPAGANDA. My god! Anyone know why their donations are TAX DEDUCTIBLE and my soon to be increased donations to the NRA are not?
_______________________________________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; When the
government fears the people, there is liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --
Mahatma Gandhi

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you;
that is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain

wetwrks
03-16-2007, 03:58 AM
"Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst."

When the judges rule in their favor they talk about how the system worked. When the judges go against them then it is judicial activism at its worst. You cannot have it both ways.