It wasn’t too long ago Bitter and I were discussing this “Cross on the Road” phenomena. But neither of us could have talked about it in a way that’s as creative and amusing as Tam’s writing on the subject.
Standing Up in Canada
Thanks to Geek With a .45 for this link. Follow it, watch all the videos. It is some truly excellent stuff. This man is facing The Inqusition a Canadian government inquiry demanding answers as to why he published cartoons that were deemed offensive to Islam. Here is the first video, just for your perusal. Watch all of them:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g[/youtube]
We must never let this happen in our country. Never! Bravo to Mr. Levant for standing up for his rights.
Quote of the Day
From Ian Argent, in the comments, speaking about The Administration’s filing on DC’s side in DC v. Heller:
They slapped gun owners in the face with a fish. Sushi-grade fish, with some tasty sauce, but still, a slap in the face with a fish…
Best metaphor of this whole sorry affair that I think we’re going to see.
NRA Statement on Solicitor General’s Brief
Can be found here:
The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.†The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,†the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.
However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened†level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.†A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read the whole thing. While the Solicitor General’s brief does agree with an individual rights point of view, and while it also does not call for DC’s handgun ban to be upheld, what it is intended to do is preserve the existing federal firearms laws, by applying a level of scrutiny that would uphold them. What angers me is that The Administration is dragging other issues into this case which are not currently at question. This case is not about the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act of 1968. It has nothing at all to do with federal regulations on machine guns. The issue here should not be what standard of scrutiny upholds the current federal gun laws. The Second Amendment ought to receive the highest level of scrutiny as we would apply to any other part of the Bill or Rights. By calling for less than that, I still stand by my assertion that Bush has slapped us in the face, and I wish NRA would have issued a stronger statement on this one.
An Endorsement
If you will notice on the right side of this blog, I have added a sidebar item in support of Fred Thompson’s candidacy for President. I decided that it was time to put my money where my mouth is, so I have made a donation to the Fred’s campaign as well.
I will keep the banner there as long as Fred remains a candidate. I’ll admit, I was disappointed by Fred’s showing in New Hampshire, but I sincerely hope that Fred can pull out a win in South Carolina, and do well in the South. I’m tired of supporting compromise candidates, so here’s hoping Fred gets it together and sweeps the South and Super Tuesday.
More on DWI
Ragin’ Dave has an amusing story to tell from his Army days.
Chicago’s Reasonable Restrictions
Here’s the kind of reasonable restrictions the Bush justice department apparently think is just fine. Do you think gang members in Chicago are paying these fees?
NRA Screwed Up In Endorsing Bush
There, I said it. Happy now? Bush was always a lesser of two evils choice. I think NRA needs to reconsider whether endorsing a lesser of two evils candidate is really worthwhile. If Bush is the bar for getting an endorsement, what incentive do other candidate have to work hard for it? The bar for 2008 must be set higher than it was in 2000 and 2004. In other words, don’t even think about endorsing Guiliani or Romney. Even McCain I would be reluctant to endorse at this point.
This part would normally be where I should rant on about how the NRA endorsement system is a total cluster fuck, how NRA doesn’t represent the interest of gun owners, and how Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are incompetent boobs and have hurt the cause by leading all us useful idiots down this dank dark path, and collecting luxuriant salaries while doing that. Apparently that’s the proper way to disagree with NRA. I must have not gotten the memo.
But you know I’m not going to do that, because I think most of their critics in the same place would also make mistakes; probably a lot more than these guys do. There’s no magic formula for winning in politics.  Let me say that again so it sinks in: There is no magic formula for winning at politics.  People saying they have one (like, if you just never compromise, if you just scream “No!”, you’ll win!) are selling snake oil.
The endorsement system is a political tool. I don’t have to condemn NRA for their endorsement of Bush, because the consequences of that endorsement are built into the system; Bush has lowed the bar of NRA’s endorsement and reduced its value.  Real friends won’t do that to someone who helped get them elected, but while Bush is loyal to his personal friends to a fault, his loyalty to his political constituencies has left a lot to be desired. I’m not sure there’s any constituency left in the Republican Party has hasn’t punched in the face by Bush.
NRA needs to be more careful in its 2008 endorsements. These things do matter, and we’re seeing the result of putting someone in the White House who doesn’t seem to be all that loyal to the people who helped put him there.
Next Moves
I hold out the possibility that someone in the Administration put forward this brief without the President’s knowledge. If that is the case, I want to see people in the Solicitor General’s office, who have their name on this brief, getting sacked. Chief Council for ATF was the person who wrote the brief. Did Michael Sullivan know about it or not? He’s ultimately responsible for what happens at ATF, regardless. Will President Bush withdraw his nomination?
The next few days will show whether Bush has indeed decided to abandon the second amendment, and throw America’s gun owners off his ship of state. If this was done without his knowledge, and if he wishes to repudiate this action, heads must roll now.
Can someone explain to me …
what George W. Bush’s administration has done for gun owners? His administration has filed a brief supporting the DC gun ban. This is nothing more than total an utter betrayal by Bush of gun owners. John Ashcroft was a friend of the second amendment, no doubt on that, but I don’t think Bush ever was.
NRA needs to set a VERY high standard for the next Republican candidate for getting an endorsement, and if he doesn’t meet that standard, he doesn’t get it. John McCain, I’m talking to you. Start kissing ass now buddy, because you have some amends to make. If you’re our friend in the same way Bush said he was, you can go get bent.
George W. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He did not ever deserve NRA’s endorsement. This is a betrayal that cannot be forgiven.
UPDATE: Guess who wrote the brief? Chief Council for ATF. Guess who his boss is?
UPDATE: Joe Huffman has an excerpt of the brief and had this to say:
This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I’m not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.
The basic crux of the brief is that the Administration is arguing for a standard less than strict scrutiny on right to bear arms cases.  They aren’t arguing that the second amendment isn’t an individual right. Nonetheless, this opens the door to the possibility of what I would call a “worst case” individual rights ruling, which would basically make the second amendment the only fundamental right protected by the bill of rights which is subject only to intermediate scrutiny at best, and a rational basis test at worst.
This outcome would not be a complete disaster, but if it leaves the door open for cities to ban the possession of functional firearms, there’s not much that the second amendment could be considered an obstacle to. The second amendment needs to be subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise the lower courts will rule that the Heller precedent doesn’t mean a damned thing, just like they did with Miller.
I think we can ask for more than this out of a supposedly pro-gun president that gun owners helped put in office.