The Brady Campaign's post-Heller plans.

A couple of weeks ago the Brady Campaign's president, Paul Helmke, told ABC News that they expect the Supreme Court to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.  Was he waving the white flag?  Hardly.  In his elaboration, he put his best anti-gun spin on that little tidbit, asserting "this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side." 

In a subsequent interview Brady Campaign attorney Dennis Henigan revealed the gun-confiscator's plan in averring that if the Court rules (in defiance of all that is Good and Right,er, Left!) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's private Right to Keep and Bear Arms and further dares, under that reading, to find that D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional, it's all good.  It will fire up the base and rather than generate an exodus of Hollywood types for France, it will instead help anti-gun groups push for a ban on sales between individuals (good luck with enforcing that, fellas), a push for Democrat Representative Carolyn McCarthy's new, broader ban on "assault weapons," (no M1s for vets from the CMP anymore!  You may have toted 'em in the war, but we can't trust ya with 'em now!

In addition, a limit on the number of guns a person can buy, and a limit on the number of guns a person can own, unless, of course, they pay an "Arsenal Fee" and build a storage facility (open to no-notice inspection, natch) that will be spec'd to cost thousands.  After all, it's okay, really, for the rich to own guns.  We just don't like poor white trash and persons of color owning weapons.  Heh.  The genesis of most firearms control legislation lays in the fact that government types and societal elites don't like the masses to have access to things like that.  They take up airs and don't defer properly to their betters.  No, of course not all who are against personal firearms ownership feel that way, but many, when you start asking probing questions, do feel that way, and some are surprised when you guide them to that realization.  It's fun to watch a full-blown liberal's face when the realization dawns you just got them to admit they're racist.  We already knew they were classist.

They didn't mention the other tactic the anti-gunners are going for - drastically raising the price of ammunition and inflicting great tedious hassle and paperwork... and limiting how much you can have.   The net effect of which will be - pretty much nothing, but they'll feel good about it.  The only people who have large amounts of ammunition are generally... shooters.  As in legal, sport shooters.  Admittedly, the mentally disturbed tend to have what seems like a lot of ammo when they go on their sprees but the impact of this tack is going to mostly be to hassle gun-owners, with little practical effect.  Which the Brady Campaign sees as a net plus, anyway.  The gang-bangers will see little to no disruption in their ammo supply. More classical criminal types rarely carry much ammo with them, and just about none of them do any serious practice - ergo, they don't *need* much ammuntion.  So, knowing this, it gets spun as an anti-terrorism angle.  Heh.  They're all for obtrusive and annoying anti-terrorism enforcement... as long as they aren't affected by it, eh?

 All this means they'll be able to stand in front of the Supreme Court and say - "Hey, you said it's about hunting and defending yourself.  No one needs more than 50 rounds at any given time for either activity, so we're not infringing on anyone.  And if that 50 rounds cost $100, so what?"