Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

Finally, it is important to understand that the Court’s decision will not jeopardize other gun laws. The sheriffs’ challenge to the Brady Law was based on the Tenth Amendment, not the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents remain clear and unequivocal: there is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to service in a well-organized state militia. The Brady Law was subject to Tenth Amendment challenge — not the Second Amendment — because it involved a federal mandate to state officials; such mandates are not found in other federal gun control laws. In no sense did the Court impose general limits on the power of Congress to enact strong gun laws.

Sarah Brady
Jun 27, 1997
[Times have changed. We have a successful Second Amendment challenge under our belt with another one due this spring. And we have another Tenth Amendment Challenge working it’s way through the courts.

Mrs. Brady is going to see a lot more changes in the next couple of years as the effects of Heller and McDonald make ripple across the country. None of them will make her happy.

Although 1994 was probably the high-water mark for the Brady Campaign they did have a few minor victories after that with things like President Clinton’s executive order mandating the provision of written warnings with each handgun sale. Since then they have been been essentially stopped on every major front and have been pushed back on numerous others. They things they now count as victories are merely a successful defense against our attempts to liberate those they have oppressed.

And a great deal of that push back has happened because of the Brady Organization. I bought my first guns, a SKS rifle and a Ruger P-89 (with 15 round magazines), and started becoming active in the gun rights movement in early 1994 because of the anticipated infringement being advocated by them. I know several other people with similar stories. In 1994 it was Sarah Brady who took the title of the best gun salesman ever. That record stood until Obama claimed the record last year.

It’s ironic that the anti-gun people frequently claim the NRA is only interested in the profits of the gun manufactures and dealers but it’s the success of the anti-gun people who do the most for those businesses.

And notice how it only works in one direction? If the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, JPFO, etc. start pushing legislation and winning people don’t start selling their guns or turning them in to be recycled. This effect has to be really discouraging for them.

Given the present data the logical thing for them to do is blindingly obvious. If they really want “fewer guns on the streets” they should completely disband their organizations and take vows of silence. But data and logic isn’t their most distinguishing attribute and you should not expect such action from them anytime soon.–Joe]


One thought on “Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

  1. I’m wondering why it should be legal to have an anti human rights / anti Bill of Rights organization operating in the U.S. Can someone make a case for it? Anyone?

    OK, I’ll start. Maybe we could say that the first amendment right to free speech means you can say anything you want (using your personal right to speak out against rights). Maybe it does, so long as other people’s rights aren’t being violated by the speech alone. Sticks & stones verses words. Still, any legislator hearing the anti rights speech, and then acting on it with anti rights legislation would be expressly unconstitutional and such action should be met with swift and sure punishment. Yes? No? Forget about guns for moment and focus on the principle. Yes? No?

Comments are closed.