Inaccurate Statement by Brady Campaign's head
The Brady Campaign's preemptive announcement of defeat in District of Columbia v. Heller contains an interesting bit of spin:
But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.Plus ca "change," plus c'est la meme chose. In 2000, the NRA endorsed Texas Governor George W. Bush, who supported a similar provision regarding gun shows. Accordingly, the NRA's endorsement of McCain is not good evidence that gun control is more popular in 2008 than it was in 2000.
"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Inaccurate Statement by Brady Campaign's head
- "We've Lost the Battle on What the Second Amendment Means,"
IIRC then Governor Bush also publicly supported renewing the so-called “assault weapons” ban (while taking no steps to make it happen) which Senator McCain voted against. Which might be construed as a data point that the momentum is actually in the opposite direction.
since you've already hijacked the thread...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080612/D918R9N80.html
I don’t believe either of them, but it’s an indication that gun control isn’t very popular any more, and even the Democrats know it.
Cue Supreme Court in 5--4--3--
Brady Campaign will need to find something new to do.
If you want to see more proof the NRA is invested in gun control, watch who they endorse. Bob Barr is the libertarian candidate, opposes all gun control, and is a board member of the NRA. Will he get the NRA endorsement? Nope.
McCain wants to close the gun show loophole, where Americans have to get government permission to own a gun. Clearly that is allowed by the Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". McCain is for expanding gun control in the US, not revoking it. He'll be endorsed by the NRA because he'll continue gun control.
While I'm not very fond of the NRA, I think that explanation is both unkind, and inaccurate. The NRA's reason for attempting to derail Heller was that they thought it was an unnecessary gamble, that they were winning on the political end of things, and didn't need to risk a judicial upset. And I agree with them about the gamble part: We all seem to be assuming Heller will prevail, and maybe that's the likely outcome, but it's by no means certain even at this point.
The justices who are presumed to be on the side of reading "right of the people" as referring to a right, tend to be excessively enamored of precedent, and upholding the 2nd amendment means, in the end, striking down a LOT of laws which have accumulated over the last 70 years. Perhaps not right away, but eventually. That's NOT something they're eager to do. It's anybody's guess whether they'll decide to rule correctly, or conservatively, and we need every last one of them to win.
The chief reason Heller was a reasonable gamble is that the 2nd amendment IS going to end up before the Supreme court, sooner or later. Either now, with a respectable test case, and fairly good Court, or later, with a test case engineered by the Brady Center, before the Obama court.
When your choice is between risky and downright suicidal, you pick risky.
And, while I fully intend to vote for Barr, short of McCain coming out on the stump for a renewal of the 'assault weapon' ban, the NRA is not going to endorse a third party candidate. Either Obama or McCain is going to win, and the NRA has no interest in changing a 50-50 chance of electing somebody pissed off at them into a 100% chance.
The NRA makes a lot of choices I don't like, but at least most of the time, they have defensible reasons for making them.