In another not-very-surprising court decision released today, Federal District Court Judge Julie A. Robinson granted Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against him and Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt by the gun prohibitionists at the Brady Campaign.
The Court found that the “Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits…”
The Brady Campaign had asked the Court to “declare unconstitutional and enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Kansas Second Amendment Act, which prohibits application of some federal gun control laws to personal firearms made and kept within Kansas borders.” (K.S.A. §§ 50-1201–1211.)
The thrust of the case, as explained in the decision:
Brady Campaign thus brings this action seeking an injunction to prevent Defendants from enforcing the Act as well as a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional on its face. Brady Campaign alleges four causes of action: (1) the Act is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it purports to nullify federal gun control laws and regulations and to define the limits of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause; (2) the Act is void for vagueness under the United States Constitution because it is insufficiently explicit to inform who may be subject to its enforcement provisions or what conduct on their part will render them liable for penalties; (3) the Act is void for vagueness under the Kansas Constitution for the same reasons; and (4) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
But, ruled the Court:
“…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.”
Apparently, City of Hiawatha, Kansas Mayor Crosby Gernon felt that “he will be criminally prosecuted or held civilly liable under the Act’s enforcement provisions.” But, in this case, feelings weren’t enough to overcome the Brady plaintiffs’ terminal deficiencies. (Just don’t anyone go tell Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Easterbrook.)
Ultimately, said Judge Robinson in the opinion, “the prospect of future enforcement of the Act against Mayor Gernon, or any other Brady Campaign member, is purely speculative.”
“Purely speculative.” Pretty much sums up gun control in general, doesn’t it? (Well, that and ‘disingenuous,’ a word the Court left out of this opinion, though others have been less understanding recently of the “bad apple lawyers”at the Brady Bunch, like Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, and their suspect litigation practices.)