Good news Brady Campaign lost

[bandaid1]

Brady Campaign v Brownback was ruled on today by U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson that ruled that Brady's lacked standing.

This case involved the 2013 Kansas law called the "Second Amendment Protection Act" Here is the only document I can find on the lawsuit:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Brady-vs-Brownback.PDF

Here is the article about the ruling, I haven't been able to find the full text ruling:
http://cjonline.com/news/2015-06-05...brady-campaign-lawsuit-against-kansas-gun-law

As I understand the issue, it involved the state passing a law stating that Kansas would not assist in or help federal agencies in the enforcement of any new federal firearms laws. (as a side note: North Carolina is also looking to passing a similar law).

 

[Frank Ettin]

Brady Campaign v Brownback was ruled on today by U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson that ruled that Brady's lacked standing....

The decision (Brady Campaign v Brownback, Case No. 14-CV-2327-JAR, U. S. District Court for the District of Kansas) may be read here.

Note that this is a narrow, technical ruling. The District Court concluded that the Brady Campaign did not allege facts sufficient to establish standing to sue, and therefore the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. As the District Court said (Brady Campaign, slip op. at 24):

...the Court finds that at this time, Brady Campaign has not alleged an actual or imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the enforcement of the Act and redressable by a favorable decision by this Court. Brady Campaign, therefore, lacks Article III standing to mount a constitutional challenge to the Second Amendment Protection Act. The Court therefore need not reach the other issues raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction...

So the decision does not address the substance of the Kansas law. We have had a number of discussion regarding the various "firearm freedom" law enacted by a number of States. See "More states passing laws to nullify federal firearms laws" and "MO Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Laws ".

While it can be gratifying to see an opponent tossed out of court, the result here does nothing to validate these state laws. They remain largely symbolic.

The Ninth Circuit ruled substantively against the Montana "firearm freedom" law in one case (Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013)), finding the Montana law preempted by valid federal law. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case.

 

[bandaid1]

I thought the Montana freedom firearm act was about making firearms in Montana (NFA items) that would stay in Montana.

The Kansas law, to me, reads more like; Kansas is not going to enforce any new Federal firearms laws and no one in their state can assist in it without facing the Kansas law forbidding it. I guess there was a Mayor that is upset about it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I thought the Montana freedom firearm act was about making firearms in Montana (NFA items) that would stay in Montana.

The Kansas law, to me, reads more like; Kansas is not going to enforce any new Federal firearms laws and no one in their state can assist in it without facing the Kansas law forbidding it....

Why don't you find the laws, read them, post the information and links to the laws? It wouldn't hurt you to try doing some research.