The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Ahab points to another gun buyback destroying an antique firearm:
The gun was an antique revolver with a gold-plated frame and wooden grips.
And the Rev. James Tennyson was sad to see it go, but considered it his duty to destroy the gun — because keeping any firearm off the streets was a success, he said.
Yeah, because I’m sure antique black powder revolvers are all the range among muggers, gang bangers, and drug dealers. How delusional can you get?
It’s been a common misconception among the gun blogosphere that Full Faith and Credit should apply to carry permits. Eugene Volokh talks about why that isn’t necessarily the case.
SayUncle is running a poll on Parker. I’ll make my prediction:
The Supreme Court grants cert. Reasonable regulation of firearms are OK, but it gets treated as a right. I don’t expect the court to go into much detail on what kind of regulations it would accept, just that DC’s law is in violation of the second amendment. They’ll leave that to the lower courts to argue over for a few years, then take another case. I think the ruling will be 6-3 in favor of an individual right. It will go thusly:
In the majority, in order of how certain I feel we’ll have them on our side:
In dissent, also in order of how sure I feel:
I figure the last two could go either way. Souter I’m not sure about being in dissent. Of course, Roberts and Alito we don’t really know much about. We know Roberts knows the law surrounding the second amendment from his confirmation hearings, which suggests he’s looked into it, or at least knew that might come up in the hearings. Really, I think we only have two votes on The Court we can be certain of, and that’s Scalia and Thomas (both of whom are shooters). I think we can feel pretty confident that Alito and Roberts wouldn’t look too kindly on ignoring part of the Bill of Rights. Strangely enough, I think Ginsberg, despite being the most liberal justice on The Court (by some people’s measure) with a background in civil rights litigation, and being big on women’s issues (remember, Parker is a woman), won’t look too kindly on throwing out part of the Bill of Rights either. I think Kennedy could go either way, but suspect he’ll fall on the individual rights side, also not wanting to poop on the Bill of Rights.
But who knows. Chances of me being spot on are slim. Hopefully any surprises are pleasant. The big worry I have is not so much Parker, but what comes after. What kind of regulations will the courts accept? Will the cases that move forward through the federal courts be as good as Parker? Probably not. We’ll surely have setbacks. But if we prevail in Parker, and I think we will, it will shift the battle against the gun control movement into significantly better ground. It will be the most significant victory for gun rights of my lifetime.
UPDATE: Be sure to read Dave Hardy’s take. He posts the following from one of Ginsburg’s opinions:
“Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (“keep and bear Arms”) (emphasis added) and Black’s Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.””
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown is back on CNN. This time she didn’t misspeak, and I think offers some pretty good advise to women:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56mnFYAGO4[/youtube]
Can’t really argue with that. Thanks to Jason for spotting and encoding this for me.
These are two people who should really pick topics to talk about where one of them actually has a friggin clue. From Illinois:
Jeff Berkowitz: What about the state, should there be some state controls on the sale of guns?
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t have a problem with the waiting period. I don’t have a problem with registration.
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you like to see a ban on assault weapons?
Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends on what’s on the list?
Jeff Berkowitz: Semi-automatics. How about that? Do we need more semi-automatics out there?
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know that we do.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you might want to restrict semi-automatics.
Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends—Is it used for hunting? Is it used for sport?
Jeff Berkowitz: Well, you can hunt people or you can hunt deer.
Terri Ann Wintermute: Exactly. Or is it used for hunting people.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, the same gun can be used for multiple things. Do people who hunt deer need semi-automatics? Is that the way it’s done, I don’t know. I am not a hunter.
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know. I think you can—there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber–
WTF? Seriously, do either of you have any idea what you’re talking about? If not, do us all a favor: DON’T. Yes, semi-automatics are used for hunting, they are used for shooting clay pigeons. Even scary looking “assault weapons” are used for service rifle competition, and numerous other recreational activities. They are also damned useful for self-defense, as evidenced by the fact hat police are using them almost exclusively these days.  So go get a clue, or leave it to people who actually know this stuff.
It scares me that “there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber” is making public policy.
Well, maybe not ever, but as long as I’ve been doing them. I went to the range tonight to see what I could produce. The answer was crap. I think what frustrates me the most about this match is I just have a hard time seeing the target. I posted a 1.5 inch ring target, and I can hit that consistently, but put me on the shrinking circles, and I feel lucky to hit the 8, which is the same size.
I think the difficulty is just having a really weak point of aim. The numbers in the circles are a little distracting. They are difficult to see. I think Conservative UAW guy has done a good job here. He’s managed to frustrate me more than the Golf match! At least there I could aim at color!
Anyway, results, rimfire iron, were:
Two handed, weaver stance, 25ft – 52 points out of 91
One handed, bullseye stance, 25ft – 36 points out of 91
88 points total.
I’ll see if I can return to the range before the end of the month to beat this score. I might not have time though. If I do return, I might give it a shot with the Glock. The Glock certainly isn’t a precision shooter, but I’m comfortable with it, and I want to see if maybe that counts for something. The larger caliber could also help turn some of those near hits into hits :)
Today Ed Rendell is on a roll:
The bill – HB1590 – earmarks about $950 million annually for roads, bridges and mass transit. The money would come from sources that include boosting tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike by 25 percent in 2009 and increasing the toll rate by 3 percent each year thereafter. It also would allow I-80 to become a toll road.
Rendell said the plan represents “by far the most significant amount of money devoted to transportation needs in the history of the commonwealth†and should put roads and transit in good shape for the next 15 to 20 years.
Supporters say tolling along the 313-mile, east-west route would be set up to eliminate or minimize fees for local drivers by building collection sites at New Jersey and Ohio borders. However, the bill doesn’t specify how that would work.
When Ed Rendell was elected, he said:
We are the second oldest state in the Union because too many of our young people are leaving Pennsylvania. They are leaving Pennsylvania behind for opportunities elsewhere.
And he vowed to change that. Well, Ed, I’m a young person by most people’s definition, and I’m seriously considering leaving the Pennsylvania, where I have lived all my life, for a southern or southwestern state, because you can’t stop raising taxes and trying to take away my personal liberties.
No one will take you seriously as a blue state if you don’t enact a smoking ban.  Because we’re all about freedom and personal choice.  I miss good old fashioned liberalism, I have to say.
Gov. Ed Rendell has called for a ban on smoking in most public places as part of his broad “Prescription for Pennsylvania” agenda to lower the cost of health care, broaden its availability and improve its quality.
Ed Rendell can take his Prescription for Pennsylvania, and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Surrender personal freedom to keep health care costs down?  Oh yeah, that’s a road I want to go down.
Sometimes I swear we don’t have any politicians that have even the remotest concept of liberty. In this world, I am an extremist, and that’s sad, I think.
Because New Jersey’s gun control laws aren’t working, Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg are upset about Tiahrt:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNUFYl3VQr4[/youtube]
At least he’s honest and admits it’s for pushing for more gun control and for lawsuits, and doesn’t accuse Tiahrt of cutting off police access to the trace data.
Of course, he fails to mention that the Fraternal Order of Police and BATFE favor the Tiahrt amendment as well. Nor does he mention why they are opposed to it: because abuse of the trace data has interfered with legitimate law enforcement investigations.  Exactly the kind of abuse Menendez is supporting in this video.  Next time a politician tells you they support gun control as a crime control measure, don’t believe them.
HatTip to Blue Jersey
Menendez’s candor doesn’t surprise me. He’s from a state where you can say things like that, and it won’t hurt you.
Apparently these folks have never heard of training. Or know nothing of the severe ammo shortages that are plaguing the military and civilian market alike.  But why bother to check facts when you can just jump to conclusions.