Ahab has a link to Wayne LaPierre and Paul Helmke on MS-NBC’s hardball.
UPDATE: I’m willing to bet that Paul and Wayne can probably at least agree that Chris Matthews is a horse’s ass.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Ahab has a link to Wayne LaPierre and Paul Helmke on MS-NBC’s hardball.
UPDATE: I’m willing to bet that Paul and Wayne can probably at least agree that Chris Matthews is a horse’s ass.
From the Juliet Leftwich (great name for a gun grabber, isn’t it?) lead counsel for Legal Community Against Gun Violence:
“We are concerned the resources are going to be diverted to the defense of laws already on the books”
That’s music to my ears. Welcome to the post Heller world!
Ilya Somin has a sobering post comparing gun rights to property rights:
With very few exceptions, the effort to strengthen protection for property rights was categorically opposed by the Court’s liberal justices. Any property rights case that got to the Court almost starts with four guaranteed votes in favor of the government. This has two important effects.
First, any division in the ranks of the conservative justices is likely to be fatal for property rights in the case at issue. For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the liberal justices in Kelo and several other important property rights cases, leading to important setbacks for property supporters.
This is why we must vote McCain to keep Obama out of the oval office. McCain is far from perfect, but neither were the two Bush’s, which we would be facing a loss on Heller had it not been for electing them.
As with property rights, the ideological division on the Court also leaves any gains vulnerable to future reversal in the event that a Democratic president is elected. The liberal justices’ opposition to gun rights is also shared by the vast majority of liberal judges on the lower courts. If Obama (or any other Democrat) becomes president, they will likely appoint justices who share these views. Even if Obama does not make this issue a major priority in his nomination decisions, the fact that he will want to nominate justices who are liberal on other constitutional issues will ensure a strong likelihood that they would also embrace the dominant liberal position on this issue. This happened in the case property rights as well. Opposition to property rights was probably not a major factor in Clinton’s choice of Ginsburg and Breyer. Indeed, Clinton was among those who later vehemently denounced the Kelo decision. Nonetheless, these two justices turned out be property rights opponents (even in Kelo) precisely because Clinton did make a priority of appointing judges who are generally liberal, and such judges are likely to be anti-property rights.
Seriously, McCain sucks, except for the alternative. Let’s not get complacent here, or this day will be all for naught.
SayUncle talks about how DC is digging its own grave. To my mind, it’s not necessarily a gift to us that they are being obstinate, but a problem. NRA needs to push Congress to set The District’s gun laws for them, and preempt city council from regulating firearms entirely. We don’t want to be in a situation where we have a constant back and forth in the courts until eventually DC comes up with a regulation The Court will accept. The next step should be going after the incorporation angle, using bans and regulations that are similar to Washington D.C.
If you open carry in Wisconsin, and have been harassed as a result of it, Milwaukee magazine is looking to do a story on this. I would be very careful talking to the press. In fact, this is something where state leaders in the movement really need to step up and make sure the media is getting the right message, and coaching people on how to deal with them. Treating the media like friends of gun owners can turn into an embarassing mistake very quickly.
One gun a month passed the New Jersey Assembly by a vote of 47-28 and 4 abstentions. The vote was held around 6:00 tonight.
Jacob points to an awful bit of chicken little in the media, in regards to Heller jeopardizing local gun regulations. He points out how the Sullivan Act came into being. Also worth pointing out is that New York’s crime rates were sky high in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the gun laws the AJC is crediting with lowering crime rates. The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911! I guess it just took a century for it to start to work? Dream on.
Because what they think apparently matters. At least the WaPo seems to think so.
I went and made an analogy the other day.  SayUncle has taken it further, and suggests that there are certainly gay activists that are far too “in your face” with their gayitute. He’s right, I think. There are plenty of open carry folks who are genuinely interested in legitimizing the carrying of firearms in the general public. But there are attention seekers out there.  Yes, the open carry movement does have our equivalent of this guy. Don’t be that guy!
Gun Truth tries to get a local park to rethink their local gun restrictions in parks. It’s not a bad idea. In a lot of cases, the townships and boroughs are actually unaware that they are violating state law.