Next Step

Alan Gura has revealed his next move. This is an interesting case, involving North Carolina’s emergency powers provision, which appears very broad:

In February 2010, the City of King and Stokes County declared a state of emergency due to heavy snowfall and local power outages. The proclamation from the City of King forbade the sale or purchase of firearms and ammunition, as well as the possession of firearms and ammunition off an individual’s premises. If you had a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit, it didn’t matter as the state of emergency proclamation superseded it.

This will be interesting to watch, especially after the election. One of NRA’s legislative priorities has been fixing emergency powers provisions in states that have had bad ones. Democratic control of the North Carolina legislature, with anti-gun reps heading up key committees, has prevented substantial improvement in North Carolina law to date. If the North Carolina legislature flips to Republican control, I would expect NRA to move for a legislative fix. I’m not sure if that would moot this case or not. Either way, there’s no reason to not use the Courts, and Gura is always very careful about putting together good cases that win. It’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

ASHA Shills

Sensibly Progressive points out that American Hunters and Shooters Association once assured us that Sotomayor was going to be our justice, and presumably we self-defense whackos just needed to quiet down and accept her. Well, as the decision yesterday has shown, she doesn’t believe Americans have a fundamental right to keep a handgun in their home according to our constitution. From the dissent she joined:

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view. See ante, at 41–44 (dissenting opinion). Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ lives at risk. See ante, at 35–37. And the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation. See ante, at 44–51.

The Court, however, does not expressly rest its opinion upon “substantive due process” concerns. Rather, it directs its attention to this Court’s “incorporation” precedents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is “fundamental” so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante, at 11–19.

I shall therefore separately consider the question of “incorporation.” I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.” And I consequently dissent.

We’ve known for a while the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to AHSA. Now the Emperor’s pasty white skin is blinding people.

What Objectivity Looks Like

I have never heard of the Alyona Show, but apparently it exists on the RT network. and Ladd Everitt from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and J.P. Freire from the Washington Examiner appeared on it in regards to the McDonald ruling:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuLaeCMN0zo[/youtube]

She asked tough questions of both sides, and was intelligent and informed about the issue. Not to mention kind of hot. Note that RT is Russia Today. What is Russia today?

RT was launched as Russia Today by an autonomous non-profit organization in 2005. However, much the funding to this organization, ANO TV-Novosti is injected from Russian Federal Budget (2.4 Billion Rubles in 2007 [1]). In 2007, RT’s monthly audience share exceeded that of CNN and Bloomberg TV among NTV-PLUS satellite subscribers in Moscow.

Get that? The former commies are managing to have better coverage of our issues than CNN and Bloomberg. This is a sad, friggin state of affairs for our media here when the Russian Government manages to fund media that’s more objective and informed than our own. God help us.

A Reminder

This has been a big news day.

As Sebastian mentioned, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s husband died yesterday. In the Senate, Robert Byrd died this morning. Certainly, these two events have added an obvious weight to today’s proceedings. Sen. Orrin Hatch’s words about the Ginsburg family were very sweet, and Sen. Jeff Sessions had a pretty funny story about Byrd doing a Friday morning floor speech lamenting how textbooks weren’t teaching the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Elena Kagan’s hearings started at 12:30, and I’m tuning in to cover them while Sebastian sticks with McDonald. Sen. Sessions has already brought up that Kagan’s previous work put her on the wrong side of history today. Regardless of what any gun groups do, I think the strength of the opinions issued today will make this a red meat issue for the Republicans. That’s actually a good thing. We don’t have to use any political capital, yet it remains a big issue. It really help drives home that the Second Amendment is becoming an 80% issue. That means we can use our political capital on other fights – specific policies, defeating candidates, and winning reforms legislatively.

Waiting for McDonald

The wait is the worst part. Tune in to SCOTUSBlog at 10 for the nail biting coverage. I am off work today, so as soon as the opinion comes out, I will begin reading and commenting. We have a simple strategy Bitter and I have worked out. If McDonald wins, we’ll go out later tonight and celebrate with some drinks. If McDonald loses tonight, we’ll go out later tonight and drown our sorrows with some drinks. Either way distillers, wine growers, and brewers benefit!

UPDATE: Tom Goldstein from SCOTUS blog offers his prediction:

I predict that Justice Alito will write the Court’s opinion in McDonald recognizing that the Second Amendment is incorporated.  But given Justice Alito’s sensitivity towards law enforcement, I doubt that the opinion will call into question a broad swath of firearms regulation.

We’ll find out very shortly whether he’s right.

UPDATE: Apparently Justice Ginsberg’s husband passed away yesterday. Very sad. We wish her the best no matter how she voted.

Overcharging for Licenses

One problem with LTC’s in Pennsylvania is that how much they cost depends on what county you’re in, despite the fact that the fees for licenses are supposed to be set by law. Such is the problem now cropping up in Lehigh County:

Lehigh County officials are scrambling to figure out if Sheriff Ron Rossi’s office has been illegally overcharging gun owners for licenses to carry concealed firearms.

The sheriff’s office sent legislation to the county commissioners this week asking for the fee to be increased from $25 — the amount set by state law — to $38. While other counties also charge more than $25 for such licenses, Rossi’s staff began charging the higher fee years ago without legislative approval, spurring a slew of questions and criticism at this week’s commissioners’ meeting.

Commissioner Andy Roman said the county may have “a serious issue here” and called for an audit of the program as well as a legal review to see if people who’ve paid $38 for the licenses are entitled to $13 refunds.

Many sheriffs charge extra for a credit card style license that goes beyond what the state requires. I have no problem with this and hope sheriffs keep doing it, because the result of not pursuing this issue properly is going to be all of us having to carry paper licenses that just aren’t going to last for five years, or fit conveniently in a wallet. I do think the sheriffs need to inform applicants that the paper options is available at the state mandated price, however, and many are negligent with that.

But a lot of the fee variance isn’t because of issuing credit card style LTCs, it’s due to varying interpretations of the Sheriff Fee Act. The UFA does not allow for any fee to be charged “other than that provided by this subsection or the Sheriff Fee Act may be assessed by the sheriff for the performance of any background check made pursuant to this act.” While in the previous section, the 5 dollar fee allowed by the Sheriff Fee Act is stipulated, the Act also allows for the following:

In addition to fees provided for in this act, the sheriff shall be paid costs, charges and expenses incident to the performance of an act required by court, order, statute, rule or regulation including, but not limited to, printing costs, publication costs, services of experts, watchmen, postage and mileage, which shall be costs to be paid by the plaintiff, petitioner or person requiring them to be incurred.

That’s pretty broad, and open to interpretation by the Sheriffs, depending on what they want to charge for things. Really, until we get a legislative fix clarifying the intent, the truth us the Sheriffs can legally charge more for a permit than 25 dollars, provided there can be some kind of reasonable relation to the fee and a service (they probably couldn’t, for instance, drive your LTC application around to rack up mileage charges under the Act). I have little doubt that the legislature intended this to be a specific price, but until they reference that specific section of the SFA, this is the situation. The fix for this is likely going to need to come from the legislature.

Prejudices on Parade

Joe Huffman has been posting an ongoing series for the past few weeks, reviewing his collection of gun control supporting political cartoons, which tend to bring out all the leftist stereotypes of gun owners. Go have a look, and keep following. It gives you a pretty good idea what those in the media have thought about us over the years.

Mass GOP Chair Condemns New Gun Control Proposals

It’s good to see that the Republican Party in Massachusetts still hasn’t abandoned gun owners. The New Jersey GOP has for a while. I think their last chairman recognized the problem, but I’m not sure the party is moving far enough, fast enough. I don’t expect much from Governor Christie, as he has much bigger fish to fry at this point, unfortunately.

Steve Israel Looks to Count Juvenile Convictions

I’m very wary of this idea, mainly because the juvenile justice system has lesser due process protections than the criminal court system, such as the right to trial by jury. It was designed this way because the juvenile system is not supposed to operate in the traditional realm of crime and punishment, but as a means of rehabilitating a juvenile who had been adjudicated delinquent. At least that’s the theory. That’s why juvenile adjudications are treated differently than criminal convictions in the regular court system.

In most states the option exists to try juveniles as adults for serious, violent offenses. My preference would be that a juvenile be tried as an adult in these types of cases, which would remove his Second Amendment rights upon conviction. By applying a life-long civil rights disability to a juvenile, it defeats the point of the juvenile justice system. Presumably, much like Lautenberg, there would be an ex post facto component that would apply this retroactively, creating thousands of newly minted, and blissfully unaware felons overnight.