Why, Pennsylvania of course.
Hat tip to Gun Law News.
Category: Guns
Cert. Filed
DC has filed the petition for cert. with the Supreme Court for DC v. Heller (formerly Parker v. DC). Dave Hardy has the petition.
Not an Individual Right?
I’m intrigued by this quote from Saul Cornell:
The arms bearing provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not frame the right as an individual right. If it did it would not pair it with the typical 18th century attack on standing armies and an affirmation of civilian control of the military. The entire provision is clearly about a militia based right.
The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution states the following:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Can someone explain to me how this can be interpreted as anything other than an individual right when it specifically says “the people have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state?”
Of course, later, in 1790, we shorted that to:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Sorry, but the collective rights interpretation is looking more flimsy by the day.
Go read!
Canadians Get US Gun Laws Wrong
Via Jeff, this article has a glaring inaccuracy:
Cho allegedly answered no, but the panel wasn’t allowed to see the forms he filled out, which were destroyed within 30 days anyway, both restrictions courtesy of National Rifle Association lobbying. His psychiatric hospital history was not in the database, anyway, so Cho got away with it. And these checks aren’t mandatory in the first place.
I’m not sure why the panel wouldn’t have had access to the 4473, but 4473 is required to be kept for twenty years by the dealer in his records.  I’m going to guess, though I will admit that I don’t know for sure, that ATF can come in and make a copy of 4473, and probably subpoena the original.  Plus the background check is absolutely mandatory if you’re buying a firearm at retail.
But why research, when you just spew.
PICS Upgrade Finished
PICS is back online a day early.  It came up at 8AM this morning. I’m very pleased that the State Police’s IT team managed to get it up sooner than expected, but Ed Rendell is still a turd.
Economic Reasons for Hunting Decline
John Lott certainly hits on several of them. I’m definitely the hopeless suburban kid who was never exposed to it. I understand the importance of hunting for wildlife management, and certainly don’t have any problem with it, but I’m just not one. The barriers to entry for this sport are certainly rather high, wouldn’t you agree? And I don’t just mean the fees.
Countertop Has a Friend
Looks like Countertop has found himself a friend. I have to admit, the video he chose for an update was choice.
If call your vegan movement “abolitionists”, the term for people who in the early to mid 19th century were dedicated to the ending of human slavery, your moral compass has wandered hopelessly off course.
Must Read
Legal Bitch points to a great debate hosted by the federalist society between Bob Levy, Alan Gura, Glenn Reynolds, Josh Horowitz, Saul Cornell, and Dennis Henigan.
Couldn’t Handle the Reasoned DiscourseTM
Looks like Robyn Ringler has had about enough Reasoned DiscourseTM, and plans to close down comments:
As I have said before, if I were standing in public and someone said these things to me, I would walk away. And so it is not my style to stand still and allow the abuse to pile up all around me and others I respect. That is why I will no longer accept any comments at all.
I’ve mostly ignored Robyn, so I can’t personally say she’s censored anything of mine, but I’ve seen folks who put up posts elsewhere, that they claimed to have posted there and not had them approved, that seemed eminently reasonable to me.
I have no doubt that Robyn has gotten some pretty nasty stuff. For that I apologize on behalf of our community. People get really passionate and angry when you start talking about taking away something they feel is their birthright, and even on my side of the issue, I find myself regularly dealing with a lot of that passion and anger.
I am sorry to those of you who have sent in such thoughtful, intelligent stories and ideas and to those of you who are really fighting on both sides of the debate to find some common ground. I salute all of you and hold you dear to my heart. You are true heroes.
It’s very difficult to find common ground on this issue precisely because the anti-gun movement categorically denies that we have a constitutional right to bear arms and refuses to agree to treat it like other constitutional rights. If Robyn wants to have a debate on the scope of the right to keep and bear arms, I’m game for that, but I don’t think there’s much common ground when you won’t even recognize the right exists at all.
We will remain an open forum here on the pro-gun side of the blogosphere, but I’ve been surprised at how few advocates of gun control are willing to come here and have an open discussion with gun-right advocates. I does not speak to the strength of the gun control side of the argument that they continually have to shut down debate and discussion for their views to triumph.
UPDATE: Thirdpower has more