I saw this on a firearms related list I susbcribe to.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

I enjoy hypocritical stories.

On their website's FAQ section the Brady Campaign states in response to the question about whether they are a gun ban organization, "Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns."

So one has to ask why they are so opposed to the DC court simply striking down a gun ban in Parker v. DC.

Here is Paul Helmke:

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.

I only echo what has been well posted elsewhere. Alan Gura and Cato won Parker v. DC at the appellate level.

There are all sorts of interesting implications. If you read it closely, registration isn't likely constitutional. No matter what, the important bottom line is that the Bill of Rights will be defended, even if the result isn't what some people would prefer.

That's why we live in a republic - not a democracy.

Congratulations to Alan Gura who brought this case and Eugene Volokh who had a whole lot to do with the outcome.