Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 941 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Article on Scalia in the New York Times

It includes some criticism he’s gotten from Heller:

As it happens, itâ€™s not only some Democrats who view Scalia as a constitutional hypocrite: many prominent independent and Republican judges and scholars have also criticized him for ignoring the original understanding of the Constitution in the cases he cares most passionately about. As Biskupic points out, Judge Richard Posner has derided Scaliaâ€™s constitutional history in the gun case as â€œfaux originalism,â€ and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson has compared Scaliaâ€™s gun opinion to Roe v. Wade for its refusal to defer to the political branches.

Posner’s knowledge of the scholarship that has surrounded the Second Amendment recently leaves much to be desired, and one wonders whether Harvie Wilkinson has read the Congressional briefs in Heller and McDonald, where a substantial majority of the “political branches” came down in favor of an individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Unless by “political branches” Judge Wilkinson means DC City Council, the City of New York and the City of Chicago? Maybe the reason Scalia hasn’t responded to these critics because their arguments are so shallow as to not be worth responding to?

The Big Debate: Godwin?

Joe summarizes a debate that’s happened within the community that I’ve been following but haven’t joined in. Joanna I think makes some good points too. Partly because I don’t fall cleanly on one side or another. It can’t be denied that a very significant motivation for gun control is a form of cultural condescension, and a any bit of discussion on the Internets quickly reveals that many people have a prejudiced view of the kind of people gun owners are, and associate gun ownership with certain cultural stereotypes. It might not be racism, or anti-semitism, but it’s a similar form of intolerance nonetheless, and that should be pointed out. But in doing that, I do think we need to be careful about what we compare ourselves to. Not everyone who believes in gun control has a bigoted view of gun ownership, and not every discussion of gun owners is necessarily driven by cultural prejudice.

But Joe is fundamentally correct that the cultural condescension can’t go unchecked, or it’ll grow, and it is often useful to point out how it’s not that different from other forms of intolerance. But more often that not, I think the prescription for that is for people to learn that reality doesn’t match the stereotypes they have in their head, which means they have to learn they have gun owners and shooters in their social circles. One of the reasons I think cities like New York and Chicago have become such wonderful breeding grounds for these attitudes is it’s highly unlikely political and cultural elites will have gun owners within their circles of friends. This is a product of the legal environment in these places, which hopefully we can change soon.

Gun Free School Zones

Joe reminds us of a poor way in which the law was drafted, that exempts having a gun within 1000 feet of a school if you have a license from the state the school is in, but doesn’t in other circumstances. It is therefore possible to be charged with violating the federal gun free schools act if you carry on a reciprocal out of state permit.

The Gun Free School Zones Act was held unconstitutional once, but Congress rewrote it. It’s likely it wouldn’t stand up again if challenged. But it is worth noting.

Words to Banish

I think we can all agree here:

Drawing nominations from English enthusiasts and those just plain tired of overused expressions, Lake Superior State University’s Word Banishment Committee has issued its list of words and phrases it deems time to be “unfriended.”

Among them: “teachable moment,” “czar,” “shovel-ready” and combinations of words such as “sexting,” “chillaxin’ ” and “bromine.”

I’m keen on eliminating the use of the word “czar,” but I sure do wish Obama would ban them from his administration. Also, the only thing that turned out to be “shovel ready” in this stimulus was any semblance of fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress. That’s been well and truly buried.

Pennsylvania Leaders Involved in McDonald

Over at PAGunRights.com, I take a look at the leaders in Pennsylvania who stepped up to sign on to at least one brief in favor of the petitioners. You can read excerpts from all of the relevant briefs over there, but here are the names of those who deserve our thanks for being proactive on the issue:

It would have been nice if more Pennsylvania lawmakers had stepped up to be on the right side of history in this case. As I understand it, there were time constraints in some states.

Maybe we should use this against lawmakers anyway. As gun owners we could tell them that since most of them did not help out on McDonald, they could make it up to us by passing Castle Doctrine. :)

Bloomberg Sworn in to Third Term

God help us all.

Newt Gingrich on What Needs to Be Done in 2010

Follow this link over the Anarchangel, and watch all five video of Gingrich’s speech to David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. Well worth your time.

Looking Ahead

Some challenges we’re going to face in our issue in 2010, and they are numerous.

MAIG is continuing to build itself into an increasingly virulent organization, and they are usage our local mayors to build political legitimacy. Personally, Bitter and I have a good bit of work to do in this area, as MAIG has signed up more than a few mayors in our respective districts.
We have to be mindful of redistricting that will be happening post 2010, as a result of the Census. Texas stands to gain four seats. The only blue state that stands to gain is Washington. Pennsylvania will lose a Congressional seat. If the PA house doesn’t turn around, the Democrats will have a lot more input into redistricting than the GOP.
We have to be involved in the primary process in both parties, but especially the GOP. The GOP stands to make substantial gains in 2010, and we want them to gain with pro-gun candidates. Since guns aren’t the first thing on people’s minds, this is going to be a real challenge. We won’t do the Second Amendment any favors if we replace good pro-gun Democrats with soft or anti-gun Republicans.
The 2010 elections themselves are going to be critical. Bitter and I will certainly be busy with helping out NRA endorsed candidates here at the local level. Chances are we’re going to lose Harry Reid, so things are going to get more difficult for us in the Senate. Chance of the GOP turning the Senate are virtually nil, just because of who’s up. The House is a different matter, and we could switch that back to GOP control. Getting Nancy Pelosi and her cronies being out of power will be a good thing for our gun rights, but it’s probably not going to change much.
Pennsylvanians get to elect a new Governor this year. We will finally be rid of Ed Rendell. All three GOP contenders are good on gun rights. We’re very lucky there. The Democrats are a mixed bag, with several candidates being rabidly anti-gun. We have to be cautious here.

It’s going to be a very interesting year, that’s for sure. But this year, we have an opportunity to change things. This will be our first opportunity to tell Obama and Pelosi what we think of their leadership.

Article II Lives!

SayUncle points to an amusing mishap over at Field and Stream, in what’s an otherwise decent article on rifles in the past decade:

The Supreme Courtâ€™sÂ Keller decision. Article II lives!

Yes, he’s going to find out just how alive Article II is if the Obama Administration starts implementing Mayor Bloomberg’s Blueprint to Prevent Gun Ownership.

Hamblen Says He’ll Appeal

According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor:

Hamblen says heâ€™s not surprised that he lost at the appeals court. But he says he is surprised that heâ€™s received no help from gun-rights advocates. â€œThey are treating me like Iâ€™m a skunk at the picnic,â€ he said.

As for his case, he plans to fight on. He says his lawyer is preparing a final appeal, a petition to the US Supreme Court. â€œWhy stop now? Iâ€™ve already done the hard part. Iâ€™ve already done my time,â€ Hamblen says. â€œAll they can do is say no.â€

My prediction is that the Court will refuse to take the case, leaving the Sixth Circuit decision on his conviction in place. Hamblen will remain a convicted felon. He shouldn’t be surprised being treated like a skunk in a picnic, because that’s generally what I would call someone who puts everyone else’s legal rights at risk because he’s right dammit.

I’m not outraged because I believe it’s correct to exclude fully automatic firearms from the Second Amendment, but because I think it’s wrong. If someday public and judicial opinion on the topic changes, we’ll need circuit courts where that issue is undecided in order to move a case forward. Wayne Fincher has already sealed up the Eighth Circuit with a bad ruling, and now the Sixth Circuit is closed off as well thanks to Mr. Hamblen. Others may venerate these men as heros, but I don’t believe they are. We all know what the law is, and if you’re going to force your case in front of federal judges, you owe it to everyone else who’s passionate about the issue to prepare a careful, thorough, and well put together case. Dick Heller is a hero. Otis McDonald is a hero. These men did it correctly. Skunks at a picnic? I can’t think of any analogy more apt.