Month: March 2010

I gave a call to Michael Bane of Outdoor Channel’s DownRange TV, and spoke with him for a bit about the McDonald case after everyone had come out and we were standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building. At first, I handed over my phone to Dave Hardy, then proceeded to talk to Michael myself. You can hear my interview here.  Jim Shepherd, who we also saw outside on the steps, gave an interview here.

Looks like DRTV had some pretty good coverage of the case, along with Michael Bane’s blog.

I’m Uploading Here All My Pictures from the Event, with appropriate labels. Many of them you likely saw in Twitter if you were following my feed, but here they are for those of you who were not following along on Twitter. You can click on the pics to make them bigger, and to see my footnotes.

After the case, we headed to lunch with Sandy Froman and some of the folks from NRA’s General Counsel’s office. Headed over to NRA-ILA’s Federal Affairs office in DC after that just to be able to sit down for a few minutes. We got a chance to chat with Chris Cox and Rachel, our blogger Media Liaison. Then on to the reception where we spoke with some of the ISRA folks, some Calguns Foundation Folks, and Alan Gura.

We got a pretty wide array of gun rights opinion from many different parties. Everyone was very positive about the case, and was in high spirits. I think this was a great day for the Second Amendment, and I am thankful we have so many smart and dedicated practitioners out there fighting for it. Let us hope the outcome is as positive as our moods yesterday.

In some ways, it was bad for the blog for both Bitter and I to go down, since it’s exceedingly difficult to cover events live with a blog. I’m sure others have better coverage than we do by this point. I noticed some commentary at Volokh here, here, and here. I have thoughts on McDonald I’ll be sharing today, but I have a good bit to get caught up with, and I’m still really drained. Yesterday was a long day, and despite getting up at 4AM, we didn’t get home until 1AM this morning.

I am very glad I went, however, and got to see at least five minutes of history being made before my eyes. I am glad I had the chance to meet with so many of the players in this herculean effort. I even introduced myself to the Brady folks, who were outside the event lining up media interviews for after the case was heard. Paul Helmke was very gracious, and we actually spent about 10 minutes talking with Peter Hamm, who was equally gracious. No reason not to be cordial with the other side, because there is always plenty of room for politics later. This is how our Republic functions, after all.

I wouldn’t say we’re cheering Starbucks, since we’re not really asking them to take our side. We really don’t want them to take any position on this issue. That’s all we ask. It’s the Brady folks who want them to make a statement. That’s why I’m a little worried that this AP article here seems to misconstrue the issue:

“They’re trying to change the culture with this broader notion of gun rights,” said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government professor who has written a book on the politics of gun control. “I think they are pressing the notion that they’ve got a rout going, so why not just get what they can while they’re ahead?”

We never tried to drag Starbuck into the gun debate. It was the gun control advocates who did that. All we want is for Starbucks to continue its current policy. We might be trying to change the culture on gun rights, but Starbucks was never intended to be a part of that. It’s the gun control folks who smelled an opportunity here, not us.

This time from the Chicago Sun Times, who gets that this is a 14th Amendment case, but says the Fourteenth Amendment “limits states from enacting laws that essentially subvert federal law.” That would be the Supremacy Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from abridging the “privileges or immunities” of citizens of the United States, or depriving them of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.” At least these are the two clauses at issue in McDonald. It’s not really incorrect to say that it “limits states from enacting laws that essentially subvert federal law,” but that federal law is the supreme law, namely the Bill of Rights as amended to our Constitution.