Doing a Google blog search for “schumer” (as of right now) yields my post in the number 31 position.

How did I discover this? Via my sitemeter I discovered someone at the U.S. Senate had done such a search:

Domain Name ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   156.33.63.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP   U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms

Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Virginia
City  :  Arlington
Lat/Long  :  38.8782, -77.1054 (Map)
Distance  :  2,068 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7
Javascript   version 1.5

Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Jun 30 2008 11:38:02 am
Last Page View   Jun 30 2008 11:38:02 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://blogsearch.go…ring=d&sa=N&start=30
Search Engine
Search Words schumer
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…tASlipperySlope.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm…tASlipperySlope.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Jun 30 2008 2:38:02 pm
Visit Number   324,849

Last chance to vote for me

I’ve mentioned this before but a reminder that this is your last chance to vote for me can’t hurt.

The back story:

There were 40 gun bloggers, including myself, that participated in the 2nd Amendment Blogger Bash at the NRA Convention last month. There is now a contest to select 10 of those bloggers to participate in “Gun Blogger Summer Camp”.

Action item:

Would you please vote for me? Go here and find “The View From North Central Idaho” near the bottom of the list: click on the radio button and submit it. You don’t have to put in your address and phone number unless you would like a chance at attending the camp as well (one lucky voter will get to attend with the blogger winners).

Please do it today. This is the last day of the contest.


Interpreting Obama on guns

We have lots of evidence that Obama is just another anti-gun bigot but some of his statements deserve more attention.

From here we have:

I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

Emphasis added. Notice how he switches from “illegal handgun usage” to taking “illegal handguns”? This is the language of weasels. People use guns illegally. But Obama says he wants to take handguns off the streets. He is attacking the wrong thing and he is attempting to confuse the issue.

And from here we have:

…he claimed to have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms” — while also seeing the need for “common-sense, effective safety measures” to protect “crime-ravaged communities.”


“I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I’m a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family,” Obama said. “It’s hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic.”

Since these “common-sense effective safety measures” include bans on numerous types of firearms this is like saying he supports the 13th Amendment but thinks it’s okay for some communities to keep slaves as long as their skin is a certain color.

The end of Miller

U.S. versus Miller is essentially gone as guidance for interpreting the 2nd Amendment. To replace it we have the much superior D.C. v. Heller.

To celebrate Kimberly Joe and Joseph Kim went out to the Boomershoot site. This is their story told with pictures.

This is Kimberly Joe making explosives and putting it in zip lock bags and cardboard boxes.

This is the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives required for appropriate celebration.

Here is the Firearm portion of the celebration.

This is end of the AT&E.

Remnants of Miller.

Remnants of the explosives.

Remnants of the tobacco.

Shooters and firearms post Miller and Heller.

Quote of the day–Andrea Dworkin

Though the legal system has mostly consoled and protected batterers, when a woman is being beaten, it’s the batterer who has to be stopped; as Malcolm X used to say, by any means necessary–a principle women, all women, had better learn. A woman has a right to her own bed, a home she can’t be thrown out of and for her body not to be ransacked and broken into. She has a right to safe refuge, to expect her family and friends to stop the batterer–by law or force–before she’s dead. She has a constitutional right to a gun and a legal right to kill if she believes she’s going to be killed. And a batterer’s repeated assaults should lawfully be taken as intent to kill.

Andrea Dworkin
Trying to Flee
Los Angeles Times
October 8, 1995
[It’s rare that I would agree with Ms. Dworkin but this time we are in perfect alignment. As we advance through the enemy territory in a post Heller world we need to claim this demographic. Of all the potential supporters and voters women are the single largest and easiest to convert to friends. Let’s make the most of it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.

Before there was Just One Question

Despite getting only about three hours of sleep on Wednesday night last night I spent quite a bit of time chatting in IM with Sean and exchanging emails with Jeff Knox (of the Firearms Coalition) until well after midnight. One of the things Jeff told me was that his dad, Neal Knox, had put something similar to my Just One Question on bumper stickers in the late ’70s:

Where has a gun law reduced crime?

It works for me. As usual, we stand on the shoulders of giants whether we realize it or not.

He also told a story from Chris Knox (here just below the Pink Pistol link) similar to some other stuff I have said about Pink Pistols, etc.:

During a water cooler discussion about guns an openly homosexual co-worker of mine was asked whether he held a CCW permit. “I’m a faggot in Phoenix,” he replied. “Do the math!” As with women, the self defense angle gets very close to home for the homosexual community.

It’s not a slippery slope

Some are calling the Heller ruling a slippery slope. And the lawsuits being filed (and here) might be used as evidence for that claim.

I don’t see it quite that way. It’s more as I told Sean last night in IM:

It’s like we have landed on Normandy, held, and advanced a couple miles with materials, men, and supplies pouring in behind us.

It’s going to be a very long and difficult fight. Every challenge to their bigoted beliefs will be a rallying cry for them. They will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law of the land as long as they can. It will be little different than when blacks were declared equal citizens and they were still stopped for driving while black, jailed, beaten, and even convicted in kangaroo courts on phony charges. It won’t be until we start convicting the bigots on 18 USC 241 and 242 (the rough equivalent of the Nuremberg trials in my Normandy analogy) will they start to back off.

BTW: A little birdie told me there will be more lawsuits announced on Monday. This is going to be very broad front war. We outnumber them and can out supply them. We can exhaust their resources, diminish their ability to put up effective resistance, and sap their will to fight. Some will even surrender without putting up a fight.

I’m reminded of the words of Charles Schumer:

We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!

U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
NBC Nightly News

Eat them Chucky!


According to Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions.”

One has to wonder what color he thought the light was when he claimed there was no individual right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
[It sounds to me like D.C. just became a shall issue politicial entity. That’s overstating things just a little but not by much.–Joe]

Attack! Attack! Attack!

The ink isn’t dry on the Heller decision and we have already attacked the bigots in Chicago.

I was worried when I first heard of it. I was worried it was someone that didn’t know what they were doing and they would mess it up. The Second Amendment Foundation is involved which helped ease my worry some. Reading the entire complaint I broke out into a big smile. I can hear Alan Gottlieb’s mischievous voice and carefully calculated plan coming through. Then at the very end I saw the attorney–Alan Gura.

As Sean just told me in IM, “Yeah, baby! Sleep well, Mayor Daley”.

But that’s not all! The NRA is on the attack in California as well and perhaps New York. There should not be any rest for the wicked.

This is going to be great for the election in November too. It will have a very strong component of the gun rights issues. And I think we can get out the votes better than the other side can. Plus with the Heller decision on our side with Obama flip-flopping it’s going to look bad for him.

ACLU and the Heller decision

I’ve discussed the ACLU and gun rights before and have been anxiously wondering how they would take it once the individual right issue was “clarified” for them. If they get on board with us then that would be really, really big.

Others have expressed an interest in what the ACLU has to say on the Heller decision. It’s not much but what do you expect on day one of a new era? They are suffering some severe cognitive dissidence right now. They have to decide if they want to be intelluctually honest or if they want to keep their donors.

I think I’ll write them a letter very similar to this one to help get the point across.

The DC Government’s Worst Fear

..and the worst fear of anti-gun bigots nationwide now that Heller has been upheld, is that DC’s violent crime rates will start to drop.  What could be worse for the anti-gun movement than a noticeable drop in crime after a gun ban is overthrown?

Expect them to do anything within their power to prevent such an outcome, hide it, redefine it, or try to take credit for it somehow.  Keep a sharp eye.

Good stuff in the Heller decision

Aside from throwing out the D.C. ban there is other good stuff for future victories in the decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .

I’m only about 1/5 of the way through and I have to save the rest for later. I have a dentist appointment and work to do.

Heller opinions

Find them here.

I skpped to the bottom and found something I expected by Justice Breyer:

The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today’s decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission.

Simply because it will be disruptive to existing (unconstitional) laws Breyer thinks that is a valid reason to allow the D.C. ban to stand. Try that reasoning on laws which mandate where minorities sit on a bus or which drinking fountains they can use and see what people think.