Category: Gun Rights

For the past eight years, we’ve generally been able to stop this nonsense from happening:

At the outset of that gathering, U.S. representatives indicated that they would not accept any final agreement that mentioned ammunition, civilian possession of small arms or transfers to nonstate actors. Although not the only obstacle, the United States’ positions were viewed as a major cause for the meeting’s failure.

If Obama is elected, we will be enthusiastically participating in this UN scheme to disarm the people of the world.

Freedom is arguing with a nameless, faceless government bureaucrat, who has knows little or nothing about your job, that you need a basic tool of self-protection.

There’s speculation that he’s considering it, but I he’s playing games too:

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

“We’re talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes,” Daley said. “We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens.”

Requiring gun owners to have some ridiculous amount of insurance is not a new tactic.  But expect it, and others like it, to get dragged out of the basement and dusted off as politicians and gun control advocates look for new/old ways to discourage gun ownership.

Dave Hardy provides a few links to the motion for summary judgment in the Chicago handgun case.  A few things pop out at me:

1. They offer the possibility of using the privileges and immunities clause, which was gutted in the Slaughterhouse Cases.  If the court bites, we’d be re-blazing a trail long ago scorched by the Supreme Court.
2. It appears Mr. Gura is attempting to chip away a bit at registration.  While they are not challenging Chicago’s registration requirements per se, they are challenging a few aspects of it.  Here’s an exerpt:

Whatever the value of registration, the requirement that guns be constantly re-registered burdens gun ownership but serves no useful purpose.  The city already mandates that registrants immediately notify police of any changes in their registration information, including loss or disposition of a gun or registration certificate.  Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-140.  Moreover, “[a] state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).  The penalty for lapsed or improper registration rendering the subject firearm “unregisterable” is likewise unconstitutional.

One bite off the apple at a time is how we’ll win this.

The bill is now in Thomas, if you care to search for it.  Interestingly, Congressman Patrick Murphy has signed on as a cosponsor.  Makes you wonder why he was unwilling to sign on to the congressional amicus brief to help overturn DC’s law at the Supreme Court.  Sorry, but if Congressman Murphy is only going to be a friend of gun owners close to election time, and spend the rest of the session screwing us, that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?

I am willing to accept that perhaps the Congressman has realized he has erred in his position on second amendment rights, and has now seen the light.  If it’s a true turnaround, I welcome it.  But color me skeptical.

Greg Rotz gives up an update to his story that suggests the judge in his case, who ordered his License to Carry Firearms returned, isn’t happy with the decision.  I will say, though, I have great admiration for a judge who, putting his personal feelings about carrying in polling places aside, is still willing to rule based on what the law says.  That’s more than I can say about four out of nine justices on the Supreme Court.

As a follow up to the news that NRA managed to hammer out a deal with Congress to stop the gun registration shenanigans by Mayor Fenty and the DC Council, they have a released this statement:

Today, in a bi-partisan effort, Congressman Travis Childers, Congressmen John Dingell, John Tanner, Mike Ross and Mark Souder, along with 47 of their colleagues, introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. This critical legislation overturns D.C.’s recently enacted emergency laws that continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents’ right to self-defense. This National Rifle Association-backed bill is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:

* Repeal the District’s ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

* Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

* Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

* Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.

Apparently the NRA and Democrats have come to a compromise solution on enforcing the Heller decision by reforming The Districts gun laws.  The compromise bill will be introduced today.  I’ll let you know as soon as I hear of it.

Tom King, President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and NRA Board Member, asks about whether the ACLU has been in regards to a man who was disarmed by the police for communicating with Representative McCarthy about his displeasure at her support for gun control.   The comments have a few people on the left demonstrating they are all about outrage when rights they approve of are violated, but not so much when it’s Second Amendment rights.  I mentioned in the comments:

Congressional Offices deal with people who have weird and unusual ideas all the time. They deal with the old guys that don’t have anything better to do than call their representative’s office any time they want to bitch about something. This is par for the course for a Congress Critter.

It’s one of those, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I don’t care how much of a pain in the ass this guy was being to McCarthy’s office. It’s par for the course. You don’t send to police over to his house to violate his constitutional rights because he makes your life difficult. If they believe the man is mentally off balance, there is due process for determining such a thing. Police don’t get to unilaterally decide someone is a threat and strip them of their second amendment rights.

If he made a threat to Congresswoman McCarthy, then I want to know why charges haven’t been filed?  Threats are unlawful.  Communicating with your representative is not, even if those communications annoy them.

So says Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) in the Washington Post this morning:

Sadly, since the announcement of the Heller decision, we have seen the D.C. Council continue to thumb its nose at the Constitution and defy a clear Supreme Court order by largely maintaining its draconian handgun ban.

Moreover, when Congress chose to delegate home rule to the District in the 1970s, it specified that legislation enacted by the District must be “consistent with the Constitution of the United States,” and it “reserve[d] the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject.”

I do hope some folks in Indiana will consider volunteering for Rep. Souder’s campaign in this 2008 election.  We need to keep guys like this in office.  Rep. Souder is the sponsor of H.Res.1331, the bill to preempt City Council from regulating guns, and set DC’s gun laws to something close to federal law.