As predicted
Firearms Freedom Act challenge struck down by federal judge in Montana. While their hearts are in the right place, it’s not a good legal strategy. In other news, the Brady Campaign gets to claim its first victory that I can recall in recent memory. Even though they didn’t do anything.
October 1st, 2010 at 10:52 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if Montana appeals. I met Gary Marbut at the Gun Rights Policy Conference and that was the impression I got from him.
October 1st, 2010 at 12:29 pm
From the Missoulian
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.
October 1st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Here’s a thought…wouldn’t an ethical federal judge have to recuse him/herself since they are interested parties in a challenge of their (federal) authority within a sovereign state?
October 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Meh. You’re right about the strategy. The best strategy for gun rights is mere physics: have so many guns out there that any restrictions are defeated before they start. If legal-beagle dollars are to be spent, it is better to spend them to take down the more despotic of local anti-gun rules, rather than try for the brass ring of the’34 GCA.
October 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Yeah, if this goes to the SCOTUS we might get some actual meaning back into the Commerce Clause. Which has implications for freedom in lots of areas, not just gun rights. We’ve stopped them cold, now it’s time to roll them back.
October 2nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Not happening, Britt. There are no justices on the Supreme Court who would roll back the commerce clause that far. Not a one.