John Lott takes a look over at National Review, and notices that it’s not all that uncommon over there too. What surprises me is how many of these I never heard of.
Year: 2010
Repeal the 17th Amendment!
Count me with Ilya Somin as someone who has never really agreed that eliminating the 17th Amendment is going to rebalance our federal system away from federal power. Professor Somin writes:
The claim that senators chosen by state legislatures would act to curb the feds relies on the assumption that state governments oppose federal power. In reality, however, they often have a strong interest in supporting it, a point John McGinnis and I drive home inthis article. For example, state governments love federal grants that go to them and constantly lobby for additional federal funds. They also like federal regulations and spending programs that reduce competition between state governments and benefit interest groups that have influence at the state level.
I think there’s a tendency among folks to wish there was a simple, clean fix to the problem. “We just have to change this one thing, then everything would be fine.” or to retrospectively look back on history and say “Ah ha! Here’s where we went wrong.”
But political systems are really only as good as the people who participate in them. If the history of freedom and liberty in this world has taught us anything, it’s that the struggle to preserve it is unending and relentless. There is no easy fix. No magic cure that can automatically rebalance everything for us. If we want small government, we have to struggle for small government, and never stop. More importantly, and this is where Libertarians have fallen down, we have to struggle for it in a serious way that recognizes the reality of the system we’re working in.
The fundamental reason we got big government is the people stopped believing in small government. You won’t get small government back until you recognize that’s your starting point.
Pittsburgh Papers Cover the Supreme Court Ruling
They do a much better job than the Philly papers, by actually explaining the issues, you know, like they believe the people who read their paper are literate individuals capable of thinking for themselves. This is in contrast to the Philly papers who parroted CeaseFirePA propaganda which was not even correct.
How We Win
Cheaper Than Dirt Interviews Molly Smith
Molly is one of the up and coming junior shooters sure to have a bright shooting career ahead of her. I met Molly and her family at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous last year. Molly blogs over at the Molly Minute if you’d like to follow her shooting.
Microstamping in New York
Jacob has been covering it. It’s very close to final passage. Looks like they’re getting this infection from California. Let’s hope it doesn’t keep spreading. This basically will make semi-automatic pistols illegal in the Empire State, because the technology described does not exist. The law takes effect January 1, 2012, or upon certification by the State Police Commissioner. Even if the technology does exist, the legal risk involved in selling or owning guns would be so high I don’t think anyone should bother. Though, that’s the idea with this.
HB2536 Scheduled For Vote 6/15
The bill, HB2536, to close the non-existent “Florida Loophole,” and proposes to weaken reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, has been scheduled for a vote in the Judiciary Committee on June 15th. It’s important we contact the members of the committee and let them know we don’t want this bill. Pretty clearly there are elements in the PA House that are not happy at our success with Castle Doctrine, and are looking for some pay backs. Let us deny that to them.
Scrubbing?
I’ve seen reports around from several blogs about the Brady Center scrubbing their association with Helen Thomas from their web site. The links still appear to work for me, which makes me wonder if they started to, and changed their mind once people were critical.
I’m going to be a contrarian on this one (surprise, I know) and suggest that the Brady Center scrubbing their association with Helen Thomas is the right thing to do. To be fair, they likely didn’t know about Helen Thomas’ insensitive views on the Jewish people when they gave her the “Visionary Award.” All they knew is that she was a fellow traveler who hated guns.
But the Bradys’ continued use of Thomas is, in my view, a tacit acceptance of what she said. Or at the least a strong indication they aren’t bothered enough by it to make a statement or distance themselves from it. If NRA had given a journalist an award, and they had then gone a few weeks later and made disparaging comments that, say, African-Americans should go back to Africa, I would be angry at NRA if they did not make a statement condemning those statements, or scrubbing any association with that person from their web site. I can’t get angry at Brady for doing what I would expect of NRA under similar circumstances. I hope they scrub every reference to Helen Thomas from their site. She deserves it.
What Happened with the McDonald Appeal
Uncle linked to a piece by David Codrea where there’s some dispute as to whether NRA’s case was combined with SAF/Gura’s case, and whether saying they are constitutes a misrepresentation of facts by NRA. The Court granted cert to McDonald, which was SAF’s case and which was brought by Alan Gura. NRA was made a party to the case — Respondants in Support of Petitioners — under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. So it would definitely be correct to say NRA was a party to the case, but is it correct to say they were consolidated? I would also note this passage from Alan Gura’s Petitioner’s brief, in the section described as “Parties to the Proceedings”
The three cases were related, but not consolidated, in the District Court. Petitioners and the related case plantiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
Emphasis is mine. I would say if the language is good enough to be put before the Court, NRA is free and clear in saying that. NRA has in the past, wrongly in my opinion, played up its role in certain cases and controversies at the expense of other involved parties. But this is not an example of that.
UPDATE: I should probably clarify that saying the cases were combined, rather than that the appeals were combined, is probably incorrect technically. More correct would be the appeals were combined, and NRA made a party (Respondent in Support of Petitioner) to the McDonald case. I’m pretty sure that is a correct statement.
If someone wants to flay Chris Cox, or whoever wrote that article for him on his behalf, they are free to nit pick. But it seems to me a nit pick. I don’t know how familiar Chris Cox is with the distinction between those two things, or whether anyone explained it to him in great legal detail.
Gun Control Defeated ….
…. in Massachusetts? This passed in New Jersey, but it took Corzine putting everything he had behind it. It’s getting more costly to pass further gun control even in the states where support for gun control has traditionally been strong. We’re winning.