It seems rather curious that the Bradys would insert themselves into what is almost certainly going to be a losing issue for us defending these Firearms Freedom Acts in federal court. What are they worried about?
My guess is their pocketbook. One of the disadvantages of the Brady approach to this issue is they have to be able to fundraise off their message, as opposed to MAIG who have a wealthy patron. I posit that Brady got involved because it’s a guaranteed win, they are getting the work pro bono, and it’ll be great for fundraising letters. They will be able to go to their donors and say they defeated the big bad “gun lobby” and their attempt to implement their “guns everywhere” philosophy.
Not that I blame them. Any group would be stupid not to do this. But I find it hard to believe the Bradys think this is going somewhere if they don’t help stop it.
Old marketing ploy, “ANY publicity is good publicity.”
They are financially hurting for sure, they need to serious ratchet up their funds to survive.
Brady filed an amicus brief in SCCC’s lawsuit against the University of Colorado’s concealed carry ban (http://volokh.com/2010/04/15/major-legal-win-for-students-for-concealed-carry-on-campus/).
Mind you, this was at the state intermediate appellate court, an uncommon place to see an amicus brief from a national organization.
If they thought they were going to get an easy victory there, they were sorely mistaken. :)
I would have to agree with Sebastian’s opinion… I just read through part of the Brady Campaign’s brief, and it’s a riot! It’s full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and “Blood in the streets!”
If this was a serious effort on their part… It’s embarrassing at best.
Unfortunately, it most likely wont matter who has the better brief.
That’s easy; they know the FFAs will fail and they want to be in a position to take the credit what it happens. Then again, with their track record recently, piling in might actually give us a better chance!