Firearms Freedom Act news

The Brady Campaign has very little to feel good about these days so they are doing a lot of crowing about the Federal district court judge who dismissed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case.

While most observers agree that we will not win this case that doesn’t mean it is a losing action. As I said in the comments over at Say Uncle’s place:

From the Missoulian

“We’ve believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent,” Gary Marbut, MSSA president, said in a statement. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light, the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process.”

The Brady Campaign may ultimately be able to claim victory but not without more work. They are crowing now because it will be a while before they can crow for a real victory.

I don’t think “restrictions are defeated before they start” via lots of guns is a workable strategy. As an example look at machine guns. There were lots of them in private hands prior to 1934 and now there aren’t. Also consider legislative attacks such as trigger locks, “safe storage” laws, restrictions on carry that start with schools and public buildings then progresses to banks, parks, churches, vehicles, and “public spaces”.

While the Firearms Freedom Act has a low chance of ultimate success it is an integrated part of the SAF firearms civil rights judicial strategy.

I used to play a lot of chess which gives us a way to view this. Suppose you have a slight material advantage say 15 pieces to their 12 pieces. You increase your odds of winning by trading down an equal number/quality of their pieces for yours. When the odds are 3 to 1 in your favor you are far better off than when you were at 15 to 12.

Think of it this way–we have far more money than the anti-gun side. Suppose we have 10 x as much money and resources as they do. Suppose they need to spend half as much as we do on each front as we do in order to defeat us. The more fronts we attack on the less they have to spend on any one front. Even if we attack on a front they can easily win they must spend resources on it. This makes it easier to win on more fronts.

By forcing them to divide their resources we can create much better odds for success on each of the individual attacks because we have sufficient resources that our multiple attacks do not suffer from division.

There are other reasons as well but discussion of those in public would not be in our best interests.

Please add to that what Idaho Governor Butch Otter said about the ruling:

Governor Otter said that decision is consistent with Molloy’s wolf ruling, and together they highlight the lack of regard that the judge has for states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.
“We’re hopeful that we’ll find some relief from the appellate court,” he said. “But if not, we’ll keep fighting to protect our right to self-determination.”

2 thoughts on “Firearms Freedom Act news

  1. I thought this was an interesting perspective:

    The next time you begrudgingly follow some federal “law” that restricts your right to keep and bear arms – or the next time you hear about a gun rights case that will be decided in 2, or 4, or 6 years – with the hope that some judge will give you permission to exercise your rights, ask yourself this question:

    Do you….gun rights activists….have as much courage as the pot smokers?

    For the sake of liberty – I hope you do – because I believe that we the people need to exercise our rights whether they the government wants to give us “permission” to or not!

  2. The Brady Campaign is grasping at straws, especially considering it was only a District Court. They’re loosing and they know it. And considering the typical response to SCOTUS precedent (sticking to it) from the district and circuit courts, I would give any decision from them very little weight until SCOTUS throws its two cents in.

    I might be a little disappointed in the dismissal, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just a step that can’t be skipped on the way up to the real battle. So let them do their crowing, have their largely insignificant moment of “victory.” We’ll likely be having the last laugh anyway.

    @Jason – It is an interesting perspective, but as it’s been pointed out in other discussions regarding it, it has some rather large flaws.

    First, most gun owners are almost obsessive when it comes to following firearm laws.

    Second, it would require a large concentrated effort. Not just a few dozen or a hundred gun owners scattered over the nation simply disregarding a law, but thousands, tens of thousands even, in a relatively small area (a State at the largest) to throw it out.

    And third, most pot smokers are committing little more than a misdemeanor with their actions… The same type of thing for gun owners would require committing felonies across the board.

    So basically, you need to get a large group of individuals willing to commit felonies in a concentrated area out of a group of individuals that almost obsessively follow the laws, especially those involving firearms… Good luck.

Comments are closed.