Quote of the Day

Via Dave Kopel:

Heller is the product of a mature current of constitutional thought, spurred by private groups but also by committed academics, that had clearly become prominent in nationwide politics and culture and that, by 2008, had established itself as thoroughly mainstream. In sharp contrast, Griswold was the result of an early effort by an incipient movement for reproductive rights and sex equality that had yet to become highly visible on the nation’s cultural viewscreen. In this sense, Heller has far more in common with Brown v. Board of Education than with Griswold—in the particular sense that Brown, like Heller, was the culmination of a long process of advocacy, in a self-conscious effort to entrench a certain understanding of the Constitution in the interest of social reform. In short, Heller and Griswold have distinctive sociologies. While the two are both responsive to public convictions, the cultural backdrop for the two decisions was radically different.

That’s Cass Sunstein, appointee to the Obama Administration.  He may be an animal rights whack job, but he may very well be the most pro-Second Amendment person nominated to serve in the administration (which isn’t saying much).  Griswold is the case which created a right to privacy, specifically in matters of contraception.  That case was expanded on in Roe and Lawrence.

That Heller is a closer cultural decedent of Brown is a very high compliment.  That’s an accomplishment we can all take some measure of credit for.

Changes at Freedom Group

This morning The Outdoor Wire reports that the Chairman of The Freedom Group, Paul Miller, has resigned. No real information was given for the reason for his departure other than the standard other opportunities line. I guess if anyone wants to know, they might be able to conjure him up by saying the magic word three times fast.

Miller was another Cerberus staffer who sought board positions with outdoor groups. While the report states he will continue to serve the Remington Outdoor Foundation, no mention is made of any other directorship.

DC Voting Rights Could Be Back Up

Apparently they’ve been peppering Childers district in Mississippi and Ensigns home state of Nevada with literature in an attempt to help them both get re-elected:

The measure, sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), was thwarted earlier this year in the House when Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) attached an amendment to the bill that would loosen the city’s gun laws and lessen penalties for violating local gun laws.

The DC Vote advocacy group has spent the summer pumping Childers’ district with advertisements that denounce him for the amendment. It plans to continue the ads through September, adding a Nevada focus at some point to target Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who sponsored a similar amendment to the Senate version of the bill.

Yes, I’m sure in Mississippi and Nevada that DC style gun control will be a very popular issue!  Go ahead and bring this turd back guys.  We’re ready with some polish.

“We’ll continue to push for passage of a clean bill within this Congress. I don’t know what’s going to happen with the NRA. We’re doing our part to continue to put pressure on people who are caving to the pressure of the NRA. So we’ll see what happens, but we’re definitely still hopeful.”

Yeah, you keep doing that.  I’m sure Senator Ensign and Congressman Childers appreciate the free campaign materials letting constituents know they support the Second Amendment.

This Is The Kind of Stuff I Mean

I have to sympathize with Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH), faced with an upset constituent, who is pretty clearly taken in by the birther nonsense, presumably tries to get rid of her by whispering “I agree with you, but the courts don’t.”  It’s one of the faults of politicians that they want everyone to like them.  But that’s not an excuse for endorsing this kind of garbage.

I don’t like the guy any more than the birthers do.  I took several days off from work, gave up weekends for two months to work gun shows, hit more than a few neighborhood in this county knocking on doors, went to area clubs, and made God knows how many phone calls to try to keep this guy from getting elected.  And all this for John McCain, who a year prior I swore I would never vote for, let alone work to get elected.  But we lost.  Barack Obama is the legitimate President of the United States.  Let’s concentrate on undoing that. Then we don’t have to worry about what’s on his birth certificate.

Henke on Rachel Maddow

I just watched Henke on Rachel Maddow a few minutes ago.  While I share Jon’s concern about building a broad movement that not only can win, but have a mandate to actually govern, I don’t know if I can really join him in desiring a return to a movement governed by elites.  Given the interconnectedness in today’s world, I don’t think it’s really possible or desirable to return to that.  We do need to make an intellectual case for the movement, and I agree that the Birthers and other extremists fringe views get in the way of that, but in a world where anyone with an internet connection can have their own soap box, you’re stuck having to use persuasion.   I think it’s important for people to speak out against bad ideas, but this movement ain’t ever going back to the days of Buckley.  But the same is true for the left.

On The Movement

Rick Moran has some useful thoughts on the conservative movement, many of which have played out in the Second Amendment community for quite some time:

What we should take away from that extraordinary exchange of ideas between two brilliant men is that it was done amicably, with great respect for each other, and the debate was carried out with the recognition that both were working toward a common goal.

I don’t see that being possible today. With the absolute refusal of the ideologues to abandon their purge of who they consider less than ideologically pure conservatives, and with the pragmatists fighting what amounts to a rear guard action to marginalize the crazies who are, if not embraced then certainly tolerated by the revanchists, there is no “common purpose” that could lead to any amicability or respect.

Indeed, the revanchists look with askance upon most attempts to criticize conservatism at all, believing that “intellectual elites” are simply playing into the hands of the enemy by taking fellow conservatives to task for their idiocy, or paranoia. Relatedly, any criticism of conservatism coming from the left is automatically dismissed – usually without even reading it – because that would be allowing your enemy to define you.

Read the whole thing.  I’m not sure I buy into the whole “Burkean” vs. “revanchist” dichotomy spoken about here.  I probably exist somewhere between the two, in that I favor dismantling a large part of the New Deal, but don’t think such a thing is likely to be achieved in a revolutionary manner, short of a total collapse of the people’s faith government (which is not out of the realm of possibility).   Conservatives can’t just stand for conserving societal structures, and institutions.  But nor can they stand for laying waste to them either, without offering a constructive vision of what they want America to be.  Whether we want like it or not, the New Deal institutions are part of our society, and unlikely to be swept away in one fell swoop.  Some of them we may never get rid of.

Conservatism has to stand for something, not just against the left, if it wants to attract enough adherents to be able to govern for long enough and effectively enough to make a difference.  You see that played out in the Second Amendment debate too, time and time again.  How often does NRA take heat for offering a solution to the anti-gun challenge of “locking up violent criminals who use guns” or “use the laws already on the books to go after criminals.”   That stuff gets pooh poohed, but by offering the public an alternative to more gun control, we’ve managed to stop it long enough to make real advances, and after Heller, we’ve managed to destroy a lot of the most draconian existing laws.

Resigned

The point man in Mexico’s war against the drug cartels has resigned:

Medina-Mora was an outspoken critic of U.S. gun laws, which he argued make it easy for drug gangs to acquire weapons across the border. He called for more aggressive prosecutions of criminals who smuggle guns into Mexico, saying the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t protect them.

“The Second Amendment was not put there to arm foreign criminal groups,” he told The Associated Press during an interview in February.

Let’s hope his replacement is more interested in destroying the power of the cartels, and getting Mexico’s house in order, rather than lecturing the United States, which has much lower rates of crime and violence, about its gun laws.   I’m not optimistic though.

Pittsburgh City Council Vote Tomorrow

NRA has the details on who the council members are.  They are asking people to contact council members today.  The actual bill in question can be found here if anyone is interested.  The part of the ordinance that is illegal is here:

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

  1. noxious substances;
  2. “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;
  3. filtered gas masks or similar device designed to filter all air breathed and that would protect the respiratory tract and face against irritating, noxious or poisonous gases; or
  4. any projectile launcher or other device that is commonly used for the purpose of launching, hurling, or throwing any object, liquid, or material or other substance

with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders. For the purpose of this Section, “noxious substance” includes but is not limited to animal or human waste, animal or human blood, rotten eggs, acid, gasoline, manufactured gases or sprays, and alcohol.

The problem is that Section 602.7 of the Pittsburgh Municipal Code was thrown off the books by the State Supreme Court as being a violation of state law and the state constitution.  It is, in effect unenforceable, and is so badly written as to cover pretty much any semi-automatic firearm as a contraband weapon.

There is no purpose in the City of Pittsburgh passing this legislation other than as another attempt to weaken and scoff at Pennsylvania’s preemption law.   The penalty for doing the prohibited acts is the same whether you’re in possession of a “contraband weapon” or not. Adding the highlighted section literally has no effect on the crime.  If you’re doing these acts with or without a weapon, you can be prosecuted under the same ordinance.  This is solely a jab at statewide preemption.