Post Heller Offensive

NRA has filed suit in California, Chicago, and several of its suburbs:

The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

We have won the battle over the meaning of the second amendment.  Now we begin the battle over incorporation.  NRA’s strategy, no doubt, is to try in several federal circuits as to have the maximal likelihood of success in at least one of them.

Hey NSSF – Research This

With the “common lawful use” test spelled out in the Heller decision, we’re going to want to eventually challenge the bans on assault weapons in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Maryland and Connecticuit.  In order to do that, we need more than anectdotal evidence that AR-15s, and various other firearms outlawed under these state bans are, in fact, quite common, and are of the type protected by the second amendment.

So now that you’ve spend a lot of time and energy researching the decline in hunting, why don’t we think about ways to get our friends in California and New Jersey contributing to Pittsman-Robertson again by sending copious amounts of .223 and 7.62×39 downrange?

What Regulations Are Reasonable?

Randy Barnett has discusses some thoughts.  By this standard he proposes, governments must allow some form of carrying a firearm for self-defense.  They may be able to regulate, and license certain manners of carrying a firearm, but there must be some means to allow for the right to happen.

I look forward to one day carrying a firearm down the streets of New York City should this come to pass.  I think it will happen in my lifetime.

Helmke Endorses Concealed Carry?

Did he really say that?  Why, yes, he did say that.  At American-Manifesto:

“Right to carry states are 48 of the 50 states right now…If there are clear restrictions on people [felons and the mentally ill] and to make sure that they know what they’re doing with the gun, that they pass the background checks, that the local police have signed off on it, that’s something that doesn’t cause that many problems.” [emphasis added]

Are the Brady’s retreating on concealed carry?  Can you believe he even said that?  I guess he was tired indeed, or maybe the Montezuma was getting to him.

We Won Heller …

… and all I got was this lousy headache.  Yeah, from this.  Drunk blogging climaxed right around this post, which you might have guessed from the swearing, and my not being my normal, analytical self.  Of course, that’s not to say I still don’t stand behind what I wrote.