Posted on 05/31/2008 5:53:28 PM PDT by EdReform
NEWS RELEASESAF BLASTS BRADY BUNCH OVER EFFORT TO BLOCK PRO-GUN JUDICIAL NOMINEES
For Immediate Release: 5/29/2008
BELLEVUE, WA – In their continuing effort to destroy the Bill of Rights, the Brady Campaign has launched a joint effort with the extremist CREDO Action to block confirmation of federal judicial nominees who accept the Second Amendment as protective of a fundamental individual civil right.
“If there were ever any question that the zealots at the Brady Campaign are determined to crush individual freedom and liberty in this nation,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “this new fund raising effort should put that question to rest. This is yet another outrageous example of the extreme ends to which they will go in order to stack our federal courts with far left activist judges whom they hope will trample the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
In its fund raising appeal, CREDO Mobile – which financially supports various Far Left causes including the Brady Campaign – bemoans the likelihood that a Supreme Court ruling, due next month in the Heller case, will affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms. The group also complains that such a ruling will lay the foundation for legal challenges of extremist gun laws now on the books in several states.
“The Brady Campaign and CREDO obviously want federal judges who are hostile to the individual right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb stated. “Their appeal for funds even suggests that anti-gun Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, could be a willing pawn in this insidious campaign.
“The country should no longer be surprised at the depths to which anti-gun rights fanatics will sink in their political jihad against a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb said. “What this campaign has done is focus public attention on Sen. Leahy and how he handles judicial nominations. We will be watching to see whether the Senate gives honest consideration to all nominees, or whether Leahy and his colleagues will allow anti-gun extremism to prevail.
“It is time for the public to remind the Brady Campaign and its comrades that this is still the United States, not a police state,” he concluded.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
-END-
I hope that you'll all join me in this tribute.
I’m with ya! Unfortunately, my favorite Over/Under only takes 2 shells at a time.
Just make sure that 21 round burst doesn't occur with one pull the trigger or you might end up like this guy.
Sorry I wont waste my ammo.
But I will drink a brew or two and lift my kilt on her graveside....
Hey bud...
Not yet
I'm surprised the BATF hasn't started going after Civil War revolvers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of those can fire six shots with one pull of the trigger (just hold the trigger and cycle the hammer).
The BATF is a rouge rogue agency (both adjectives). They believe (and have convinced some judges) that their rules carry more weight than statute (much less the Constitution). An open-bolt single-shot firearm is even less of a machine gun than a Civil War revolver, but that doesn't stop the BATF.
BTW, can anyone think of any firearm which couldn't easily be made to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull by the apparent BATF standard? A Revolutionary War musket would seem to be a machine gun (fire the first shot, then while holding the trigger, have someone reload the barrel, then hold the hammer back and have the person prime the pan; while keeping the trigger pulled, release the hammer. BOOM! Two shots on one trigger pull). Some guns might require a little modification to allow for disassembly and reloading while the trigger is pulled, but such modifications would be pretty simple. On the other hand, I would hope even an anti-gun jury would have a hard time buying the argument that a gun which can be fired with the trigger group removed is a machine gun merely because the gun can be fired repeatedly while someone pulls and holds the trigger (that isn't even connected to the gun!)
Sometimes it's necessary to be blunt. The function of the Second Amendment is to declare illegitimate any government attempt to disarm the citizenry, and by implication any government agency or agents making such an attempt. Unfortunately, the jury system has been sufficiently hijacked that in many cases it hardly matters what's legitimate and what isn't.
BTW, there are sound reasons for limiting what evidence and argument a prosecutor is allowed to put before a jury. On the other hand, I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where an omniscient jury would acquit and yet it would be proper to convict. Prosecutors routinely prevent juries from hearing things that might result in acquittal, but I can't think of any legitimate reason for it. To be sure, I can understand a need for some check against defense attorneys who might effectively filibuster by calling endless meaningless witnesses, and I can understand that the state needs to be allowed to rebut defense arguments (even if matters required for such rebuttal could not otherwise be introduced by the state) but I see no legitimate reason to prevent a jury from hearing a witness or argument which would result in acquittal. If a jury that heard such evidence or argument would acquit, I'd consider that a pretty strong indication that the person should, in fact, be acquitted.
Maybe KG9 has the proper paperwork. A former coworker did, and I got to fire his M2 carbine. He also had an M1917A4 converted to 7.62x51, and an M79 "bloop tube", which he made himself from a kit, but still had the required paperwork and tax stamp. (What he didn't have, AFAIK, is any "hot" ammunition for it. Only some stuff that used a .32 blank to propel a capsule of talcum powder, which is still pretty cool.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.