Gun Reports - News
Brady Campaign State Scorecards: California, NJ Restrict Freedom the Most
February 16, 2009
Printer Friendly | Email |
WASHINGTON, D.C.The Brady Campaign has released its annual state scorecards, which the group claims "rate each state on the strength of its gun laws."
From the view of GunReports.com, the ratings are more correctly described as rating "each state on the distrust it has of its citizens," or rating "each state on fascist tendencies," or rating "each state on its willingness to dismiss Constitutional freedoms."
The top five states on the Brady list were:
1 CALIFORNIA 79
2 NEW JERSEY 63
3T CONNECTICUT 54
3T MASSACHUSETTS 54
5 MARYLAND 53
The Brady rankings are based on materials provided by the leftist San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, headed by Juliet H. Leftwich, senior counsel. States with higher scores restrict gun rights the most.
In Orwellian language, the Brady Campaign's angle is that states which recognize the right to keep and bear arms "have weak or non-existent gun laws that help feed the illegal gun market."
Once again, the scores for most states are abysmal. Most people dont realize how few laws we have on the books restricting easy access to guns. As a result, we continue to make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons, says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. We need tougher federal laws, but action at the state level can halt gun violence and pave the way for common sense federal gun laws.
The laughable statistic behind the scores is that states that rank high on the Brady list are among the most violent, and states that rank the lowest are among the least plagued by violent crime.
There was good news overall for gun owners in the Brady propaganda: According to the release, "No states got a better score for 2008 than for 2007. Five states saw their scores drop: Florida, Georgia and Louisiana for passing laws forcing employers to allow employees to bring guns into workplace parking lots, and two states, West Virginia and Wyoming, for passing so-called Shoot First laws that authorize deadly force in public against a perceived threat even if ways to avoid the threat are available."
Translation: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming passed gun laws favorable to gun ownership--good for them!
The eight states that Brady ranked the lowest (includes ties)--which means the ones that have the best gun ownership laws--were:
43T ALASKA 4
43T MISSOURI 4
43T NORTH DAKOTA 4
43T UTAH 4
43T WEST VIRGINIA 4
48T KENTUCKY 2
48T LOUISIANA 2
48T OKLAHOMA 2
If your state ranks high on the attached Brady ranking list, you need to get busy rolling back restrictions on your 2nd Amendment freedoms.
Perhaps we should counter by presenting a listing that compares violence in states with laws favorable to gunownership, with their Brady rating. Such presentation must detail in its' openning, just exactly what data is presented, and its' source. Also noted should be the intent of the poll.
Citizens would easily be able to locate their home state, it's level of violent crime, and it's position re: favorable/unfavorable gun laws.
There should be a paragraph that summarises what has been detailed.
Before taking this list as gospel, I'd recommend cross-checking it against the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearms Laws of the Fifty States", by J. Scott Kappas. It's written with a pro-gun bent, and has a repression scale printed at the top of each state's page. This book's evaluation gives somewhat different rankings than this listing from Brady. Bear in mind that the Brady rankings are written by people who apparently know little-to-nothing about guns, and are scared to death of them; the Traveler's Guide is written by one of us.
I must agree with steek65, inasmuch as a comparable list of states with the highest rates of violent crimes would put these data into a sensible, logical perspective. Then, even some blathering archliberal might see the relationship between crime rates and gun laws. Perhaps they could be shown, in true Missouri fashion, that more guns equal less crime.
These people can't even get their own scoring system right Vermont has no restrictions at all including carrying without permits. By their methods we should be ranked last not tied for 27th.
I wish Me and the Mrs could get the hell out of Calif. or that we could get rid of LA,SF,and SAC. and all thier anti gunners and illegals and gangs then we word have a good gun laws state more than likly and have one heck of alot less crime and killings in this state.
Even if you had stone cold evidence that strict gun laws equal high crime rates, these Brady Bunch liberals would find some way to put a spin on it. They already do that with twisted satistics about how your more likely to be killed by your own gun than you are defending yourself. They twisted those satistics to include suicides by gun. I don't consider that a violent crime or gun issue because these people didn't harm anyone else or would have just taken pills, hung themselves, or slit their wrists. Suicide by gun leaves little risk of surviving. Anyway my point is, no matter how many satistics are in our favor these people will ALWAYS be against guns. There is no reasoning with a liberal.
Our fundamental problem is, unlike the Brady Bunch, we don't lie or twist the truth! It seems our values are always getting in the way! (Offered tongue-in-Cheek)
A GUN, LIKE A HAMMER IS A TOOL.. MESS WITH MY GUN & I'LL HIT YOU WITH MY HAMMER.
I've been meaning to try to get this comment to the NRA ILA and other gun-rights groups; don't really know where to send it. It strikes me that the current economic mess and budget chaos in California offers an opportunity to push for reducing their ridiculous anti-gun laws. The argument is that it costs the state money to enforce these restrictions on the sale of certain-cosmetics firearms, magazines over X capacity, etc. They don't have enough money currently to do what they *need* to do to keep the state running -- they don't have the excess to waste imposing idiotic and worthless gun restrictions. I would have thought that during the recent budget battle in the state legislature that a proposal to save money by repealing the whole range of gun-restricting laws would have had a better chance of passage than at any other time in the state's recent history. (Of course, from a Libertarian perspective, there are hundreds of other expensive-to-enforce restrictive laws that it would also be sensible to repeal. The pro-gun aspects could maybe be "hidden" among all those others...)
Is there anyone - other than antigunners - who believes a criminal cares what laws are passed? By disarming law abiding people you give criminals the advantage.
I have to agree with William on that and i think you can get info on the nra by going to web and finding it. I wish I had my latest issue of First Freedoms close but my other half is reading it and no one gets it from her until shes done and I aint goin to tangel with Mrs Bear
I do not give much attention to Brady Campaign Activities. I view the Brady Campaign as a group of people who have suffered a loss in some way due to a criminal activating the trigger system on a weapon. It is their life-long goal to eliminate the availability of weapons to somehow bring closure to their loss. They believe a criminal is more dangerous when they are armed. If they get rid of the weaponry, the criminal becomes less dangerous. I have a more global view on the subject. If you get rid of the criminal, the problem goes away all together. This view impacts the same number of people but does it in a positive way versus a negative way that denies an individuals right to protect themselves.
I am curious about how much of the Brady information is actual. Or any other Anti Gun lists are. I used to live in Chicago and caught a burgular in my home. I held him at gun point while dailing 911 with my cell phone and he threatened to tell the responding police that I had a handgun within the city limits. Thats when I realized that I was more afraid of my City/State Government than I was of this thief. This thief would only steal property from me that was insured but the possible arrest/ conviction court and attorney fees would possibly cost me my home, freedom, family and my way of life.
I didn't know this at the time but the burglar was armed. I had made him lay on the floor and have his hands grab a drain pipe. I went to pat him down and discovered an old Colt revolver with 3 bullets in it on him.
Now what would have happened if he had shot my sleeping wife and myself before completeing his robbery? (nothing, he would have gotten away) What would have happened if I had to shoot him? How would the Chicago courts have treated me after an incident like that? Would I be arrested and charged? Then if convicted and labled a criminal how would that affect my job and family?
I'm fortune enough to have taken another route and not found out. But what if I had no other choice?
To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com