Ha, Ha! The Brady Center Has a Conniption...

As you might expect, the Brady Campaign is practically apoplectic over today's appeals court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s ridiculous handgun ban.

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

Oh my goodness - you mean the constituents of D.C. have been deprived of a...a...a GUN LAW?!? That has to be one of the most singularly stupid statements I have ever read in my life. "Policy preferences?" What kind of gibberish is that? If I read the judgment correctly, this "policy preference" is actually an interpretation of constitutional law. That's what the judiciary does: they judge, based on the law.

Once again, the Brady Bunch simply demonstrates what a bunch of shrill, whiny gun-grabbers they really are. If they REALLY cared, they'd spend all their money trying to enforce existing laws, instead of trying to create new ones, and supporting unconstitutional ones.

Here's what's best about this whole case: The court struck down D.C.'s argument that handguns were limited to "militia." The people who pressed this case are those who live in high-crime areas (read: all of D.C.), who wanted to keep arms in order to protect themselves. This case is a resounding victory for the private ownership of arms, as expressed repeatedly by the Founding Fathers. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a private, individual, and inalienable right, and you can't be deprived of it.

If this DOES go to the Supreme Court, well, I can hardly wait. SCOTUS will very likely affirm this judgment, and then the gun-grabbers will have to come up with a new strategy. Mark my words: they will do their dead-level best to keep it from going to SCOTUS, because they know they will lose.

Come on Sarah - I double-dog dare ya.

Dzumbo Follow-up

Remington's done the right thing. Make sure you respond appropriately with your next purchase.

Remington to Sever Sponsorship Ties with Jim Zumbo

Madison, North Carolina – As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington.

“Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights,” commented Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO and President. “As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights.”

We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.

Only one correction: he might be a life-long hunter, but he is no longer well-respected.