PDA

View Full Version : Just in from Sarah Brady


triggerhappy
03-21-2007, 3:32 PM
This is one of those things that makes you wonder, are they really scared ( we hope) or is it merely political opportunism? Probably both, but I know you all love this lady as much as I do, so I figured I'd pass this on.

Have a good day, comrades!

Dear Randall,

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,

Sarah Brady, Chair

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.





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


Click here to update your e-mail preferen

NRAhighpowershooter
03-21-2007, 3:36 PM
Boy.. what a bunch of outright lies and BS.........

MrTuffPaws
03-21-2007, 3:38 PM
Well, I am glad she is keeping herself busy. So just how much blood is running in the streets of DC now? Nothing more than what was already running in the gutters probably.

hoffmang
03-21-2007, 3:44 PM
But I thought they didn't support gun bans? It says so right on their website.... :rolleyes:

-Gene

triggerhappy
03-21-2007, 8:08 PM
They don't. Merely sensible guns laws. That's all. It's worked quite well in China.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 9:31 PM
Yes...."sensible"...

Just like the Soviets, Nazi's and Chinese....

AJAX22
03-21-2007, 9:46 PM
She should focus on banning the RG-14 and leave the rest alone, thats the only one she has a legitimate beef with.

Smokeybehr
03-21-2007, 10:26 PM
This is how it should read:



Dear Firearms Owner,

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s illegal 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 Gun Law Elimination Fund to delete 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 Gun Law Elimination Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

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

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened Freedom 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 Freedom 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 illegal gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the illegal long-standing machine gun ban … to the Nazi-like 1968 Gun Control Act … to the illegal 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 civil rights-violating laws threatening public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and support 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 bad legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have wrongly 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 bad legal precedent…

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

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his Conservative close ties. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench, which the Left has been using for years to take away our rights — the Freedom 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 eliminate our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary help to our efforts to restore our civil rights. But right now, we need your support to build our Gun Law Elimination Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,

Smokey Behr, Chair

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





You can also mail a check to:
American Civil Rights Restoration Project

Rumpled
03-21-2007, 11:09 PM
Soros?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 11:15 PM
Soros?


Thats who came to my mind....who else?

SkyStorm82
03-21-2007, 11:24 PM
Sarah Brady is a POS.

That's all I wanted to say.

jumbopanda
03-21-2007, 11:29 PM
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.

I wish...

Archenemy550
03-22-2007, 12:50 PM
I loled at the RG-14 statement :p

SunshineGlocker
03-22-2007, 12:56 PM
to the Brady Background Check Law.

They are such liars. The DC court ruling specifically said that policies like BG checks and registration are acceptable. It said it in black-and-white for everyone to read. The Brady Campaign has always taken a lax attitude on facts.

thefinger
03-22-2007, 2:52 PM
"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."




I cracked up when I read that....

Anyone think she and many other liberals are hypocrites for supporting and/or ignoring judicial activism ALL THE TIME!!?? except when it backfires on them of course. That is, if this actually was a case of judical activism rather than a ruling to uphold the constitution.... :rolleyes:

I just spent about 10 seconds letting it all sink in--how dumb are liberal politicians and activists..... wow, that took a lot out of me..... time for a nap.

dfletcher
03-22-2007, 4:28 PM
From Sarah Brady
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.
Click here to update your e-mail preferen[/I]

Overturning legal precedent is bad? I suppose that same approach would have Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson still in effect? Perhaps Ms Brady would be more comfortable resting on precedent.

Surveyor
03-22-2007, 4:46 PM
Soon she'll be on tv, throwing herself and husband another pity party. I bet that poor b*stard Jim probably asks people to put him out of his misery on a regular basis. Like "Stan"s grandpa on Southpark. She's takes every opportunity to drag him around, like some sick defective toy on a string. For shame.:(

50 Freak
03-22-2007, 4:48 PM
I'm tempted to send her a big "HA-HA" letter.

I would send her a bullet, but they're so expensive right now and frankly it would be wasted on her.

1911_sfca
03-22-2007, 5:23 PM
Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

How is that? My gifts to the NRA aren't tax deductible. I was under the impression that donations to political groups such as the Brady Fund can not be considered tax deductible.

Cato
03-22-2007, 5:25 PM
"from the machine gun law to AW laws in California"


Wow, Sarah Brady thinks that if the Supreme Court rules "individual right" then I might be able to have a fully auto M16?!


God Bless America!

jjperl
03-22-2007, 5:38 PM
I can't wait for the supreme court to tell Sarah Brady to F-off.

Oh and another thing, Untied States v. Miller specifically says individuals have a right to bear arms. So there has been a rulling about individual right to bear arms, they just like to keep that on the DL.

ldivinag
03-22-2007, 8:03 PM
I'm tempted to send her a big "HA-HA" letter.

I would send her a bullet, but they're so expensive right now and frankly it would be wasted on her.



i did.

when i did one of their online surveys, i used my "fake/useless" email addy that i sometimes checked.

sure enough, i got that email from them.

so i replied something like:

"are you people nuts? this is good news for LEGAL law abiding citizens..."


lol...

Tzvia
03-22-2007, 8:19 PM
I once did something on their website, years ago, like filling out a 'survey' I cant remember. Well, they started sending me surveys in the snail mail, and requests for donations in self addressed prepaid envelopes. They requested I put a stamp, to save them the money... So I filled out their surveys MY WAY by filling in the correct answers. I then put in two cents and sent it back to them without postage. :D I liked spending their money, until they stopped sending me stuff (which was about 4 surveys later).

Pulsar
03-22-2007, 8:35 PM
How is that? My gifts to the NRA aren't tax deductible. I was under the impression that donations to political groups such as the Brady Fund can not be considered tax deductible.


Yeah, I had the same thought. Why does an organization that blatantly attacks the constitution get tax deductible donations, but an organization that upholds the constitution doesn't?

xenophobe
03-22-2007, 8:54 PM
The DC court ruling specifically said that policies like BG checks and registration are acceptable. It said it in black-and-white for everyone to read.

Actually, the ruling stated that certain restrictions like registration and training MAY be legal.

hoffmang
03-22-2007, 9:06 PM
+1 to what Xeno said. Technically, those parts of the Parker decision are dicta.

-Gene

PanzerAce
03-22-2007, 9:18 PM
I once did something on their website, years ago, like filling out a 'survey' I cant remember. Well, they started sending me surveys in the snail mail, and requests for donations in self addressed prepaid envelopes. They requested I put a stamp, to save them the money... So I filled out their surveys MY WAY by filling in the correct answers. I then put in two cents and sent it back to them without postage. :D I liked spending their money, until they stopped sending me stuff (which was about 4 surveys later).

the better way to do: if the envelopes are prepaid, tape them to bricks :o

24_minutes_to_1000
03-22-2007, 9:47 PM
I'm tempted to send her a big "HA-HA" letter.

I would send her a bullet, but they're so expensive right now and frankly it would be wasted on her.


It wouldn't be a waste if you sent it to her at 3000 fps. :)

SunshineGlocker
03-22-2007, 10:54 PM
+1 to what Xeno said. Technically, those parts of the Parker decision are dicta.

Interesting. IANAL, so my statement was based on my casual reading. It did seem to me that the court wasn't taking an absolute no-regulation stance at all. To me, the essence of their ruling was a) it's an individual right (duh, like all the other individual rights in the BoR) and b) there is a "civil purpose" which is much broader than some narrow definition of "militia" service. Registration doesn't seem to contradict either of these things. They didn't put in any statement like, "there can't be registration or training requirements or any of that because a government could use those to do confiscation or something".

Anyway, a great ruling and I hope it is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

triggerhappy
03-23-2007, 6:43 AM
This is why it's deductible:

"Your entire gift to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is fully tax-deductible since no goods or services were provided. If you wish to support our legislative activities, go to www.bradycampaign.org."
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/

This one goes straight to the Brady's mortage without the bumper sticker, or Rosie O'Donnel TV tray.

Personally, I think that this is a better idea. Who wants to look at Rosie while they're eating?

triggerhappy
03-23-2007, 6:46 AM
For some reason, her pimp is never mentioned.

www.nndb.com/people/383/000024311

Gah! That hair! That face! She's like an evil Sandy Duncan!

shonc99
03-23-2007, 7:47 AM
It wouldn't be a waste if you sent it to her at 3000 fps. :)


How is it that her husband was shot yet she is the fanatical liberal wh:eek: re?

You know every liberal is a hyprocrite when all they do is try to destroy others constitutional rights. Hmmm