By Chad D. Baus

(UPDATE: This commentary has been published at CNSNews.com)

Since national politics are filled with conspiracy theories these days, I would like to offer up one more theory for them to chew on:

Republican Senator Mike DeWine was given an endorsement by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) out of a desire for gun controllers to see him lose on November 7.

Though conspiracists these days are open even to the possibility that President Bush actually conspired to create the 9-11 attack on America, I am certain some will have trouble accepting my theory about Brady endorsement. So let me explain.

Senator Mike DeWine and Congressman Sherrod Brown have equally deplorable records on gun rights. As noted in a recent Dayton Daily News article, both men supported the Brady-backed Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, and both men took the Brady position in opposition to legislation which barred gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business.

With their hatred for gun rights seemingly equal, the endorsement and strong support offered by Brady's Peter Hamm seems to make little sense.

This the second of a three part series to be featured at Buckeyefirearms.org.

By John Longenecker

In Part I, I answered Jeri Bonavia who represents Wisconsin’s Anti-Violence Effort. Ms. Bonavia’s agency characterizes Congressman Sensenbrenner’s [R-fifth] reasonable questioning of gun data usefulness as handcuffing Mayors and Cops.

In Part II, I include a selected excerpt from The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, now available in its second edition everywhere. This excerpt, in part to expand on my response to Ms. Bonavia’s press release, is called Dead Mouse, included below.

First, on the subject of no such thing as an illegal gun and how such gun data is useless, let me mention to non-gun owners that the Second Amendment was written for only one thing: to block anyone in this country from applying any seemingly reasonable due process [as you’re observing in this trafficking issue] to unwind the right to own and bear weapons, short of a constitutional amendment. We’re not talking about trafficking per se, we’re talking about further harassment as I’ll show. The founders knew only too well how due process could be abused to the detriment of the people, little by little, seemingly helpfully, and how it could be likely in any age, then and now. Please recall any other abuses today of due process that might come to mind and you can see how 22,000 gun laws serve as a precedent to affect non-gun owner households profoundly.

The language of the Second Amendment is to make it impervious to due process infringements short of another amendment. Until that hour, then, all gun laws are illegal and until then, in this country, there is no such thing as an illegal gun.

Today, on the subject of violence, the move to disarm the people with a cadre of laws which appear to be legal is a bluff. They have plenty of force behind them – that’s no bluff – but their legality is a bluff. Increasingly, tracking is going to be a big thing in the future. First, you’re convinced on the idea of using tracking for fighting crime, but sooner or later, they’ll get around to you. By then, new crimes are spelled out and you’re a dead mouse, too.

Gun laws are purely the initiative of anti-sovereignty activists and public servants who exceed the scope of their authority, but who convince or bluff the electorate in rhetoric on the concept of necessity, such as the plague of ever-increasing violence. Anti-violence sounds so righteous, but is a disguise to disarm homes and thereby dissolve resistance on a much wider family of other issues.

As more violence preys on the unarmed, there are more calls for anti-violence and the cycle continues. This is what America is beginning to feel in various, puzzling regulation which shouldn’t ordinarily touch the average home, but which affect your everyday life, and it can be traced to the anti-family movement to discourage dialogue, conflict and even resistance itself, remember? This is why anti-violence programs don’t work: they’re not supposed to, they’re anti-family, and it is an attack on the nation.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire op-ed.