Category: Gun Rights

The WaPo has an editorial today decrying Congress’ attempts to force the Washington DC into compliance with the Heller ruling.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) is pushing a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council to comply with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District’s long-standing ban on handguns.

Except that the Mayor and Council are doing everything they can to not comply with the ruling.  The Court ruled that handguns are protected arms under the second amendment, and DC is still enforcing a partial ban on them, and by maintaining their trigger lock provision which the Supreme Court also ruled a violation of the second amendment.

It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance. Once again, lawmakers are willing to impose on the District something they wouldn’t contemplate for their home districts. Local officials — not Congress — are the best arbiters of their community’s needs and priorities.

Yes, except that firearms are legal in the areas Mr. Souder represents.  And let’s not forget the constitution:

[Congress shall have the Power To] exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings[.]

This power is expressly granted to Congress, not to the DC City Council.  DC’s entire city government serves at the pleasure of Congress.  It apparently matters not a whit to the WaPo that Congress has plenary authority over the District of Colombia.  That’s not some abstract home rule argument, it’s in The Constitution.

David Codrea has authored a response to the happenings in the gun blogosphere lately.  I do not agree with everything he says, but it’s well done, serious criticism of our branch of the gun rights movement, and something I think folks should read no matter what side of the issue they are on.

The City of Chicago has vowed to fight the lawsuits against their gun ban, and to keep enforcing it while the case is pending:

“Chicago’s gun ordinance was not invalidated by the . . . decision. Three prior Supreme Court decisions have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities,” Georges said. “The decision did not change that case law.”

And all three of those prior cases existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the early 20th century that apply many provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states.  Fortunately for gun owners in the Chicago area, Wilmette and Morton Grove decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and repealed their bans.  Mayor Daley would obviously not suffer such an indignaty from anyone who dared challenge his authorty in Chicago.  The Daleys own that town.  Hopefully the Supreme Court didn’t get that memo.

I’d really like to gauge where my reader’s minds are on this topic.  Based on the thread from yesterday, there’s a lot of varying opinion about this.  I figure a lot of readers are probably reluctant to join in the conversation, but might we willing to answer a poll.  Select as many thing as you agree with.  Leave unchecked items that you don’t really agree with.  I’m always curious what my readers think about certain topics.

[poll=8]

Bitter offers up some more information about the Moms Against Guns Billboard fiasco.

I mentioned a client of Clear Channel Outdoor that threatened to put the rest of their planned campaign out to bid again unless pro-Second Amendment messages are posted in the area – with the same number and at the same cost (we don’t have it confirmed if production was also donated to MAG).

So far, the local affiliate they are working with is trying to work some sort of solution out.  I’m sure it is complicated by the legal issue the Philadelphia office has now created for itself.  I have not heard if they have returned their client’s calls or emails yet.

However, here’s the relevant fact.  The client Clear Channel is at risk of losing is spending as much on his ad account in only a few markets as the entire nationwide company has slated for their PSA work, at least based on the numbers provided to me by Clear Channel.  They could literally lose a client that would pay the equivalent of all of their donations in one year over this bad decision made through the internal biases of the Philadelphia office.

Money talks, so if you have a business, or can speak for a business, it would be useful to make your local Clear Channel Outdoors office understand this will mean they don’t get your business.

Last night, Wilmette, IL formally repealed its handgun ban rather than face lawsuits.

UPDATE: More here:

But admitted gun owner Joel Siegel said the National and Illinois State Rifle Associations were poised to file immediate suit if the repeal failed, and said any fight to save it would amount to  “beating a dead horse.”

He instead urged that Wilmette utilize NRA programs to train any child who wants gun training.

“Young people, when properly instructed, can be responsible and will not abuse a firearm,” he said.

Siegel, a retired teacher, said he came directly from a youth training session at a Kankakee firing range.

Joel Siegel, I wish there were a thousand more like you.  Five people showed up to offer opinions, and only one of them was a speaking for the pro-gun side?  Sometimes I think it’s a miracle our movement can accomplish anything.  I hope we can get a better turnout when Wilmette discusses The Legal Community Against Gun Violence’s proposed replacement.

Looks like a Mississippi Democratic Congressman is making a move to make all airports gun free zones.  Joe wonders how they’d enforce this.  Same way they enforce other gun free zones: the people like you and me obey the law, leaving the criminals and terrorists to do what they will.

Remember, it’s safe to stay home in 2008!  The anti-gun democrats won’t do anything to us when they have the White House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  They promise!

The New England Journal of Medicine keeps saying guns are a public health issue.  But do medical professionals really feel that way?   This informal poll says a lot of them don’t:

The responses from physicians who are registered members of the site was remarkbly evenly divided. Just over half (52%) said Yes, that gun control is a public health issue.

But for readers as a whole, it was another story — with 83% of the 2,023 respondents saying No. And as a further measure of interest in gun control, there were 36 comments posted with the poll. Some posters weighed in more than once to further the conversation.

This is a health care related site, so most of the folks reading could be expected to be health care professionals.

Authorities in Nassau County have seized the guns of a man who rubbed McCarthy’s office the wrong way:

An outspoken Long Island gun owner’s home was raided by Nassau County detectives, who seized two dozen weapons he lawfully owns just one day after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s office made a 911 call about him.

Freeport resident Gabriel Razzano claims he was targeted in the spring raid for his “unpopular” political beliefs.

He’s now filed a $5 million federal lawsuit against the Nassau PD and McCarthy, charging they joined forces to strip him of his guns unconstitutionally.

I mean, if he threatened her, or made threats, I would imagine they can charge him with something.  If not, this he might have some grounds to his suits.  Tom King, President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, is on Cam’s show right now saying this guy is outspoken, but not crazy, and definitely didn’t threaten anyone in McCarthy’s office.