The New York Times – Still A Shill For Gun Banners

The lead editorial in Friday’s New York Times was entitled Handguns for 18-Year-Olds? As one has come to expect from the Times, the editorial was full of the trite phrases and misleading statistics used by gun banners along with their own sense of righteous indignation.

Undermine public safety. Scuttle basic gun controls. Common-sense efforts. The deadly loophole. The gun lobby. Gun traffickers. Allow armed teenagers. Unlicensed sellers. Powerful semiautomatic weapons. Reasonable restrictions. The Times’ editorial may have left out one or two phrases from the approved lexicon of the Brady Campaign but that’s all.

The editorial starts with the accusation that the NRA “keeps coming up with clever new ways to undermine public safety.” It then launches into a litany of supposed sins committed by the NRA including opposition to the Lautenberg proposal to ban firearm sales to anyone on the FBI’s “terrorist watch list” and to a requirement for NICS checks on private sales of firearms between individuals.

The Times gets in a plug for Andrew Traver, Obama’s nominee to head ATF, calling him a “well-qualified career professional”. They bemoan opposition to him by “the gun lobby” saying his “sin” was merely to associate with “a police chief’s group that wants to reduce the use of handguns on city streets.” That it was funded by the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation is immaterial to them.

The meat of the editorial is an attack on the NRA for bringing the D’Cruz cases challenging the ban on the sale of handguns to legal adults under the age of 21 and challenging the Texas CHP law which sets 21 as the minimum age for non-military, non-veteran adults.

As a legal matter, both lawsuits should fail. In its recent Second Amendment rulings, the Supreme Court struck down complete bans on handgun ownership, but explicitly left room for limits on gun ownership and possession by felons and the mentally ill, and other reasonable restrictions like Texas’ age limitations. The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities.

Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.

They then throw out statistics saying that 18-20 year-olds commit more violent crime than other age groups and imply that lowering the age to 18 will just put more weapons in the hands of this group. Of course, this ignores both the NICS check required for a purchase of any firearm from a licensed dealer and the training, background, and other requirements needed to obtain a Texas Concealed Handgun License. As an aside, private sales of handguns are permitted for 18-20 year olds in the State of Texas and 18-20 year olds can and do obtain Texas CHL’s if they serve or have served in the military. This, too, is ignored by the Times in their editorial.

The Brady Campaign jumped the gun with their amicus brief in D’Cruz v. McCraw and had to withdraw it. However, as this editorial illustrates, Big Media is more than willing to continue to be a shill and do the propaganda work for them. Some things just never change.

The Brady Center Doesn’t Act Like Adults

As I wrote about here, the Brady Center recently had to withdraw an amicus brief in the Texas case challenging the prohibition on concealed carry by non-military, non-veteran 18-20 year olds. The lead plaintiff in the case is James D’Cruz of Lubbock, Texas who participated in his school’s NJROTC shooting program with great success and who had passed all the requirements to be granted a Texas Concealed Handgun Permit except for his age.

The Brady Center decided since they couldn’t file their amicus brief they should do everything in their power to denigrate Mr. D’Cruz. They issued a press release yesterday featuring excerpts from his Facebook page and, more or less, accused him of being a violent and twisted individual. Of course, they took stuff out of context which is about par for them.

Sebastian at SnowFlakesInHell does a great job in parsing their press release.

The Brady Center is about as effective and relevant as TSA which doesn’t say much for either organization. They also share the small-minded trait of getting nasty after having been called out on their goofs. The Brady Center certainly doesn’t provide a very good example of how adults should behave.

Brady Campaign Says Oops – Never Mind

Like a scene from the first season of Saturday Night Live where Gilda Radner’s character Miss Emily Litella is always saying “Never mind!”, so it is with the Brady Center.

Yesterday they had this announcement on their website trumpeting their filing an amicus brief in the NRA’s Texas case D’Cruz et al v. McCraw et al:

Brady Center Urges Court to Throw Out NRA Lawsuit to Allow Teenagers to Carry Concealed Firearms

Nov 17, 2010

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today filed a brief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas urging the court to throw out an NRA lawsuit claiming that teens and young persons ages 18-20 have a constitutional right to carry loaded, concealed weapons in public.

“It is dangerous and reckless for the NRA to claim that teenagers should be allowed to carry loaded semiautomatic weapons on our streets and playgrounds. The Second Amendment allows for commonsense gun laws, it doesn’t require that we legally allow armed teens in our communities,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Rifle Association, claims that the Second Amendment requires that states allow teens and young persons ages 18-20 to carry loaded firearms in public. It seeks to overturn a Texas law that generally prohibits the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons by people under age 21. Texas is one of 36 states that restricts the possession or carrying of firearms by teens and young persons ages 18-20. The Texas Constitution specifically allows the regulation of public gun carrying, stating that the “Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

The brief cites studies showing that young persons under 21 often lack the same ability as adults to “govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, and foresight of consequences.” People aged 18-20 fall within the age range of offenders who commit the highest rates homicide and engage in criminal gun possession.

According to the Brady Center brief, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects a limited, narrow “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” but has also made clear that the right to bear arms “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Laws restricting teenage gun possession and carrying are reasonable gun laws permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Brady Center amicus brief was filed today in the case D’Cruz v. McCraw by attorneys with the Brady Center, the law firm Hogan Lovells and Texas attorney Scott Medlock. The Brady Center was joined on the brief by Texas organizations Mothers Against Teen Violence and the Texas Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Today, in that same court, they filed a motion to withdraw their application of amici curiae.

In light of the fact that defendants have not moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and have instead requested additional time to respond to the Amended Complaint, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mothers Against Teen Violence, and Texas Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, through undersigned counsel, move to withdraw their application for leave to file a brief as amici curiae.

This move was not opposed by either the NRA or the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Perhaps to make up for their premature filing of their brief, the Brady Campaign then filed an application to file an amicus brief in the Westchester County (NY) pistol permit case, Kachalsky et al v. Cacace et al. They attached as an exhibit the proposed amicus brief.

However, as I noted in a post describing the first endorsed letters in this case, Judge Cathy Seibel’s Individual Practices 2.A. requires a pre-motion conference arranged by letter before a motion is allowed to be entered into the record. She makes no mention of amici curiae filings. One must wonder if the Brady Campaign is quite aware of just how tightly Judge Seibel runs her courtroom. If not, they well could be in for a surprise and may have to say “never mind” again.

The Brady Campaign – the Miss Emily Litella of gun control groups.

UPDATE: David Codrea has a post on an earlier oopsie that the Brady Campaign had with an amicus brief here.

Brady Center on Andrew Traver

This was released yesterday by the gun control lobby aka the Brady Center:

Brady Center Applauds Obama Administration Nomination of ATF Director

Nov 16, 2010

Washington, D.C. – The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today applauded the Obama Administration’s announcement that a director has been nominated to oversee the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). If confirmed, Andrew Traver – currently Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office of the ATF- would be the agency’s first full-fledged director since 2006.

“We are pleased that President Obama is moving forward with a nominee to lead the ATF. This long-needed appointment is welcome news,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center.

In August, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a report calling on President Obama to name a director to the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

“Three months ago, we urged the President to fill this crucial position,” said Helmke. “This job was left vacant at a time when thousands of Americans were being shot, illegal gun trafficking from here was fueling violence in Mexico, and extremists were turning to guns to wage terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the director-less ATF had been weakened by understaffing and a serious lack of modern crime-fighting tools.”

If confirmed, Traver would be taking over an agency that is “under siege” by the gun lobby and its allies in Congress. The National Rifle Association and the gun industry are supporting legislation – the misnamed ATF “Reform and Firearms Modernization” Act – that would dramatically weaken ATF’s ability to even further shut down corrupt gun dealers and stop gun traffickers.

“Past ATF directors have been crucial advocates for strong law enforcement authority to combat gun trafficking and gun violence. They have spoken publicly, testified before Congress, and advocated within their Administrations about the need for strong gun laws,” continued Helmke. “If Mr. Traver is confirmed, we are hopeful that he will be a strong voice for the strengthening and effective enforcement of our gun laws.”

I wonder when we will be hearing from Andy Traver’s old friends Kristen Rand and Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center or are they planning to keep that on the “down low.”

I Thought They Changed Their Name in 2001

According to the official history of the Brady Campaign, they changed their official name from Handgun Control, Inc. to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sic). From their official history:

In 2001, HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CPHV was renamed Brady Center to Prevent Gun VIolence in honor of Jim and Sarah Brady for their commitment and courage to make America safer.

However, when I was checking the recent visitors to this blog, I found the following and made a screen capture of it.

It is like the words out of the mouths of children. It is sometimes embarrassing, it is sometimes awkward, and it almost always is true.

Welcome to Florida!

The Brady Campaign thinks this billboard will scare all the tourists coming down to Florida. I prefer to think of it as a reminder to crooks, thieves, and other lowlifes that an armed society is a polite society.

I wonder if we can convince the Brady Campaign to put one on the North Carolina borders as well.

H/T Second Amendment Foundation

Gun Blogs Get the Most Interesting Visitors

Over the past few months I have had some interesting visitors to this blog. I have been honored to see the NRA checks it out from time to time. I have been intrigued to see multiple visitors from the Department of Justice ending up at the blog after doing a Google search on a potential Director of ATF. And today, I got this visitor from Washington, DC:

I don’t normally consider this blog as “not safe for work” but I guess it might be if you work for the Brady Campaign. Anyway, welcome visitor from the Brady Campaign. I hope you’ll come back again and maybe learn a thing or two about individual liberties and freedom which includes gun rights.

NRA convention underscores anti-gun camp’s irrelevancy