B.L.U.F. The argument from the mouths of the oldest group dedicated to removing your right to keep and bear arms.

I agree, they do research. It is not clear if that research is good, nor is it clear that the research is unbiased, nor is it clear that they present their research in a balanced manner. I have yet to see a single bit of educational work from Brady that wasn’t about removing firearms from The People.

They do seem to do a whole hell of a lot of legal advocacy. All of it anti-gun, anti-gun rights, anti freedom.

The thing you should take notice of is …and to protect the rights of governmental bodies to…. The government has no rights. You have rights. The states have rights regarding the federal government. The government does not have “rights”. They are allowed certain enumerated powers.

The horrible thing about “commonsense” is that so few people have it. Bubble wrap helps prevent damage. Therefore, it is “commonsense” to wrap everything valuable in bubble wrap? Brady always argues from the point of “just a small inconvenience to get what could be a huge improvement in safety”

The wonderful thing about an opinion running to dozens of pages is that somewhere in all of that verbiage, the opponents of freedom will find a phrase or short grouping of words to turn the entire opinion upside down. Here we find that a small carve out for the NFA being used to justify just about anything, and a short passage in a concurring opinion being used to justify the UHA.

There are subtle changes in wording that are designed to support that swap: whether the provision at issue regulates conduct—id..

Their Argument

This is a subtle word game. It isn’t if the “provision regulates” it is if the “individual’s conduct” is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Notice in the Bruen quote the words “we hold”. These are the magic words. This is the holding. Everything else is dicta. The holding is the most important part of a court opinion.

Here is an example of the lies that Brady tells:

This is a semantically correct statement. Semi-automatic pistols with CLIs and semi-automatic pistols with MDMs have been available for years. However, there are very few semi-automatic pistols with both currently on the market. The statement as written is designed to imply that there are many semi-automatic pistols with both, which is not true.

This is the sort of linguistic games that people play when avoiding direct orders. “John, I need you to wash out the septic tanker. Do you understand?” “I hear you.” The person telling John to go clean the septic tanker might hear “I hear you.” as an acknowledgement of the command “go wash out the septic tanker”. But that is not what “I hear you” actually means. It only means that John heard the order, not that he is going to do it.

The plaintiffs have not provided such evidence because they do not need to. Their conduct is covered under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Thus, it is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

The Brady brief states that …chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms are not new, esoteric technology and are “extremely simple and effective,”—Amicus Curiae at 5, Renna v. Bonta, Brady Amicus Brief, No. 23-55367  quoting —Charge Indicator For Breech Loading Fire Arms, U.S. Patent No. 385,360, p. 21 (U.S. 1888) That is only one half of the “CLI and MDM”. There were tube magazines in 1888. However, the first completely modern removable box magazine was patented in 1908 by Arthur Savage for the Savage Model 99 (1899)—Wikipedia: Magazine (firearms) (Jun. 2023)

The point being, that at the time of the founders, there were no metallic cartridge firearms (I think), there were no semi-automatic pistols, there were no magazine disconnect mechanisms. There were no chamber load indicators.

There were safeties. These were things like “half-cock”. The founding fathers did not put a limit on the arms that were protected by the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t limit that protection to only arms with a particular, or a group of “safety” features.

Brady are just nasty people.

Argument

Unintentional Shooting Fatalities And Injuries Are A Real And Serious Problem.—Amicus Curiae at 6, Renna v. Bonta, Brady Amicus Brief, No. 23-55367 This might be true. The proven method for reducing unintentional shootings is education. Treat every gun as if it is loaded. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy. Keep your bugger hook off the bang stick until you are ready to take the shot. Identify your target and what is beyond it.

Show me the Brady publication that lists those four simple rules. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

“Never apply a technical solution to a political/human issue.” —Michael John Muuss, Technical solutions don’t solve people problems Mike was fond of making sure that solutions fit the actual problem. Putting a “loaded chamber indicator” is more likely to increase risky behavior than it is to reduce accidental shootings. If you treat every gun as if it is loaded, the CLI is stupid. It is loaded.

I’m certain that some of my firearms have loaded chamber indicators. I don’t know which ones they are. I’ve never looked for them. I never use them. I do not trust them.

Each year hundreds die and thousands are injured in unintentional shootings.—Amicus Curiae at 7, Renna v. Bonta, Brady Amicus Brief, No. 23-55367. A true statement. My rights do not depend on your feeling bad that people had accidents.

Deaths and injuries from unintentional shootings impose an immense societal cost. “If it saves just one life!!!!” Ok, if my EDC on my belt saves one life, then it is acceptable? My rights are not dependent on you preventing “one” accident.

These deaths and injuries do not have to happen.—id. at 10 I am not willing to live my life in bubble wrap. There is no way to prevent all accidents. I live a careful life. That doesn’t mean there won’t be accidents. This last winter, I slipped and landed on my butt while snow blowing our driveway. I hurt myself. There is no law or regulation that would have saved me from that accident.

The UHA’s Safety Provisions Help Prevent The Unintentional Discharge Of Semi-Automatic Pistols.—id. at 14 This is declaration isn’t actually supported in this brief. Government and academic studies demonstrate that these commonsense safety features, which have been available for decades, save lives and avoid injuries by preventing unintentional shootings.—id.. There are no citations back to those studies. There is a citation to a 2018 9th Cir. opinion. I’ve not looked at it yet, but Pena seems to be the Kolbe equivalent on the West Coast.

Chamber load indicators improve safety by informing users that a gun is loaded.—id. at 15 Let me fix that for them: Chamber load indicators improve safety by informingsometimes inform users that a gun is loaded.

Magazine disconnect mechanisms improve safety by preventing guns from firing when magazines are not inserted. Or it will get you killed because it stopped your firearm from working when you need it most. Or instead it kept you from firing the round in the chamber when you needed it because you were changing magazines.

The Brady opinion is worth less than the electrons used to show this.

CLIs And MDMs Have Long Been Technologically And Economically Feasible.—id. at 23. So what? We have proof that it isn’t working because the UHA doesn’t have the firearms that The People want.

The U.S. military and various law enforcement agencies have long relied on firearms with these safety features.—id. at 27 What’s interesting is that they refute their own argument. From 1911 to 1985, the standard US military sidearm was the M1911, with no CLI nor an MDM. The M9, adopted in 1985, did not have an MDM, it had a CLI. But the 1911 was good enough and safe enough for multiple wars over multiple decades.

The M17 and M18 replacements for the M9 still do not have an MDM. They do have the CLI.