The Brady Campaign

[tom1850]

So I have been spending a bit of time on the Brady Campaign website looking to see where they are coming from and their articles drastically alter the facts as I know them. My question is how many laws have been created based on evidence from the Brady Campaign? Most of their studies and surveys seem to include a very minimal number of people with narrow questions designed to get the answers they are looking to achieve.

Their motivation is so transparent. It makes no sense how the courts can use this stuff for a basis for anything. Especially something as important as restricting RIGHTS guaranteed by the US Constitution.

It's both sad and a joke at the same time.

[lazyworm]

all of anti-gun laws?

facts are not necessary in making any laws, especially in CA.

[Uriah02]

all of anti-gun laws?

facts are not necessary in making any laws, especially in CA.

This ^

[radioman]

It would nice to sue them for civil rights violations, make them prove their BS. and when they can't own them, make them pay for all their lies.

[GrayWolf09]

Classic example of people adopting a position and then looking for facts to fit it. In their mindset anything which contradicts their beliefs is not a part of their world, rather than having an open mind and modifying their beliefs to fit the world as it exists.

[FNH5-7]

Notice how they advocate "sensible" gun laws but they celebrate every time an anti 2A law is passed. These guys protested both McDonald and Heller. Sensible? no. They attempt to trick people into thinking that.

[vincewarde]

It would nice to sue them for civil rights violations, make them prove their BS. and when they can't own them, make them pay for all their lies.

One place where they may have some liability is their campaign in "shall issue" states to encourage businesses to post "no guns allowed" signs. Of course, it is based upon falsehoods - and we all know that posting such signs actually increases the chances of a crime (especially a mass shooting) being committed. My understanding is that Brady assures business that by banning guns they incur no additional liability if a shooting takes place and that they assume all kinds of liability by not posting them.

So if a shooting happens in such a business, and someone without a gun is killed, their family could bring suit against the business and Brady. The argument would be that by posting such signs (and encouraging others to do so under false pretenses) they created a much more dangerous environment. It would not require the person would was killed to own a gun or have a permit. The mere fact that the signs provided assurance to the shooter that he or she had zero chance of facing armed opposition should be enough to hold them partially liable. Studies could be presented that to prove that mass shooter so a preference of "no gun zones". Ditto for studies to prove a gun in the hands of a trained "good guy" has a high probability of ending the incident. Icing on the cake would be an off duty cop or a citizen with a CCW who chose not to enter the business because it was "posted".

If such a legal action could be brought and it was successful - it would have the same effect as the monetary judgements against the KKK. It would put the organization out of business.

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I am concerned they are definitely morally liable for the lives that are lost when their very bad advice is followed.

[bwiese]

Sorry, guys, political advocacy is not, should not, and cannot be a crime.

Otherwise the shoe can fit on the other foot.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I really wish people would think more clearly before they post crap like this.

[GOEX FFF]

Sorry, guys, political advocacy is not, should not, and cannot be a crime.

Otherwise the shoe can fit on the other foot.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I really wish people would think more clearly before they post crap like this.

^^^ Savvy advice right there.

Though, I'm really starting to go through withdrawals with out Helmke's nonsensical twaddle.

[Wherryj]

Classic example of people adopting a position and then looking for facts to fit it. In their mindset anything which contradicts their beliefs is not a part of their world, rather than having an open mind and modifying their beliefs to fit the world as it exists.

It reminds me of the "Flat Earth" types.