Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 964 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Separation of Powers

Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy takes a negative view of briefs filed at the Supreme Court by legislators:

Amicus briefs written on behalf of sitting legislators strike me as inappropriate. Of course, legislators can influence the judicial process in many ways. They write the legislation that the courts interpret; they control the rules that govern judicial hearings; they can control much of the Courtâ€™s docket; and they even control how many Justices are on the Supreme Court. Further, legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they have an independent (albeit sporadically exercised) duty to ensure that legislation they enact passes constitutional muster.

From a theoretical point of view, I can understand where Professor Kerr is coming from here. But I am not a law professor. I’m a Second Amendment activist, and from my point of view, as long as the courts take an attitude of deference to the elected branches, I have no problems with the elected branches demonstrating for the Court that they have a preference for a certain outcome in a particular case or controversy, especially when such an important and key constitutional issue is at question, such as the case with McDonald. In an ideal world, the Supreme Court would decide cases based solely on what the law and constitution says, and the elected branches would stay out. But we do not live in that ideal world.

Understanding McDonald vs. Chicago

Dave Kopel has an excellent podcast that explains in some pretty good detail the issues that are at hand in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. It’s a good listen if you want to understand the case better.

More Gun Control Groups Joining with MAIG

Thirdpower notes that John Rosenthal of Â Stop Handgun Violence, and founder of AHSA, has joined MAIG in supporting closing the “terror gap” which translated from anti-gun rhetoric to reality means government bureaucrat taking away constitutional rights from Americans with no due process. Thirdpower also has a graphic of the ad MAIG is running promoting the same.

Not Hiding the Agenda too Well

Joe Huffman reports that the Bradys’ allies aren’t going a great job of hiding their overall goals. This is one reason MAIG scares the crap out of me. They don’t carry any of this baggage of the Ghost of Gun Control Past. They are a post-Heller group in both their strategy and their thinking. While I think they have accepted prohibition is off the table, they are still determined to destroy the shooting culture in this country by a death of a thousand cuts. And I think they can still do it too.

Neat German .50BMG Pistol We’ll Never See Here

A German company develops a .50 BMG pistol. I can’t imagine what it’s like to shoot this thing. Granted, it’s 15 lbs, so it’s unbelievably heavy for a pistol. Still, it’s good to know the Germans have a bit of Â “making it just because we can” left in their firearms industry. I doubt we will see it here because of the importation restrictions in the Gun Control Act of Â 1968, let alone the fact that it’s an AOW under the National Firearms Act.

Leaving No Doubt What MAIG Is

Look at this article from the Jewish Exponent:

Much of CeaseFirePA’s efforts are focused on curbing “straw sales” to felons and enacting more stringent requirements for reporting lost or stolen handguns. The campaign seeks to gather enough leaders to force the legislature to move on this issue.

As part of its push, CeaseFirePA has also partnered with mayors from upwards of 150 towns, and police chiefs and law enforcement officers from more than 100 communities across the state.

Emphasis mine. I wonder who those mayors are? Mayors like Mayor Mitchell Mogilski of Wind Gap, PA, who are standing behind MAIG’s talking points. Hopefully we’ll soon see more grass roots attention on these mayors, because they really do break the back of our legislative strategy. It’s pretty clear they are working with the gun control groups here in Pennsylvania, as we’ve extensively documented. There’s no doubt what Mayors Against Illegal Guns is at this point, we just have to make sure the mayors know who they stand with, and more importantly, who they stand against.

Late Start This Morning

Spent 12 hours in bed today. Went to the doctor yesterday because my cold symptoms worsened after a week, including fever, and worst of all my eyelids welding shut from crap oozing out at of my eyes at night.. Turns out I have a secondary bacterial infection after the cold. Started an antibiotic Z-Pack yesterday and already feel a lot better. Not real keen on starting my vacation sick, but I’m only taking the days because I’ll lose them if I don’t, so not much recourse there.

Some Idea of the MAIG Legislation

They are looking to boost funding for BATF, it looks like, and have them inspect FFLs at least once a year. There’s no way we’re going to agree to increase ATFs funding without passing ATF reform first. Let me say, these guys are very good. They know what issues to push.

New Legislation Being Introduced Tomorrow?

Looks that way to me:

Fresh off landing an endorsement from an erstwhile liberal holdout and foe, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is scheduled to appear tomorrow with another former House colleague and onetime political opponent, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

Gillibrand is to join the Long Island congresswoman, Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at John Jay College for a so-called “major announcement” (according to a press release) of a “new federal measure to combat gun violence.”

Based on this ad campaign that Bloomberg will be doing with MAIG, I would say it’s legislation designed to deny constitutional rights to Americans based on their presence on a secret government list, otherwise known as denying gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list. I would encourage everyone to make sure their MAIG mayors understand this, and definitely make sure they know it’s unacceptable.

Virginia Homeowner Shoots Fleeing Burglar

UPDATE: Ooops. Wrong Arlington. This is Arlington, WA, not Arlington, VA. My bad. Washington Revised Code self-defense statute justifies homicide here:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:Â (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; orÂ (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

So it would appear Washington State is pretty similar to Virginia in this respect.

This Arlington man is probably going to trial:

In a police affidavit, Earhart reported that he received an alert on his cell phone Monday that was triggered by his house alarm. He rushed home, saw a man running out and chased him. Earhart told Snohomish County Sheriff’s deputies that his wife’s jewelry was missing and that he had been burglarized before and was frustrated by the crimes.

A few hours later, Earhart again called 911 and told deputies he was looking for the burglar in an area near his home. Neighbors reported hearing shots fired.

On Wednesday, a neighbor called 911 to report finding Rzechula’s body in a nearby creek bed. Rzechula has a criminal history. The jewelry found in his pockets matched what was taken from Earhart’s home.

Earhart has no criminal history. He has a concealed-weapons permit and is a registered gun owner. Records show he was the victim of previous burglaries and thefts.

Virginia, if I recall, is one of the few states that still has self-defense as part of common law rather than as part of statute, meaning it’s an affirmative defense raised in court. Virginia’s court cases show that deadly force may not be used or threatened in defense of property. It may be used, under Virginia law, “to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.”

Hopefully Mr. Earhart has sufficient reason to fear for his life, and has retained a good attorney, but I suspect proving his innocence is going to be very costly for him. It is never a wise idea to employ deadly force in the protection of property. It’s almost guaranteed that you will be forced to explain your actions to a jury, which is a position one never wants to find themselves in.