What if DC citizens get to exercise their right to keep a functional, loaded firearm in the home for self defense, and the crime rate drops?  What if at some point DC gets legal concealed carry, and crime rates drop even more?

Won't the antis just hate that?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume they would see that as a defeat and absolutely hate it (it's exactly how they viewed all other defeats, where crime has dropped after a new concealed carry shall-issue law) which points to the utter depravity of these people, and the lie they've been telling us when they claim that what they're doing is about "safety".

We don't have the best Brady score yet, but we are working on it.

Many, many thanks to Mike Brown at Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance who wrote this bill and pushed it through.

I like the one from SAF. A short excerpt:

“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”

The NRA-ILA release looks like it was written the day before. They can do better.

Nothing from GOA.

Update: The NRA did get in the news with some strong statements.

The day before yesterday I wrote about others contributing to and being a part of history in the Heller case. Certainly the participants in that battle did some really heavy lifting and deserve credit for it. I'm also hearing some of them say encouraging words to the effect that they couldn't have done it alone. That all the decades of activism on the part of the grass roots and enabled them attempt lopping off the head of the beast yesterday.

Listen to what Dave Kopel says.

Ashley Varner at NRA-ILA sent me this in an email after I told her to tend to important things and not to worry about answering my email right away:

I must kindly take issue with your last email. Don't say you are unimportant -- if I were to believe the Brady Campaign claims, we are all a part of the Triangle of Death and each of our different roles are important to the cause of pissing off anti-gunners, educating the mass of gun owners, inspiring others to join the fight and above all, preserving liberty for our future generations.

I have two "take aways" (Is that in common usage? Or is that just a Microsoft thing?) from this:

1. The big hitters in our political game (a game of life and death!) are gracious.
2. A contribution even at the very lowest levels make a difference so don't think you can't or don't help by getting involved.

I have been reading (and listening) to a lot of material over the last 24 hours. No one has said they think the bigots are going to win on the individual versus collective right issue.

Reading the websites and listening to the statements from the bigots I get the impression that they are trying to hold things together and not collapse into disarray:

The Brady Bunch:

"Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in nearly 70 years, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.  Their probing questions, and the lawyers' responses, highlighted the complex history and competing approaches to gun regulation in our country.  I am hopeful that their ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

"One of the reasons we have weak or nearly non-existent gun laws today is because a lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. Today's arguments, however, demonstrated broad support from all sides for responsible regulations concerning guns. 

"Think how much safer we all would be if we made it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons nationwide, not just in a few areas."

The Gun Guys:

• Let someone else talk (collection of newspaper reports on the case)
• Here's the transcript

The VPC:

<crickets>

While cautioning that, as Barb and I say in cases like this, "I'll believe it when the check clears the bank", I think we should start preparing to use a new weapon that we might well have in our arsenal by July. As with all new weapons we need to train with it and plan how to use it before we can use it to maximum effectiveness.

The biggest issue I see is that we are, in a lot of ways, like slaves that have never known freedom. We are about to be freed from a terrible yoke and we have to learn how to use our new freedom on several different levels. If we don't we will mess up and we will still be "gun n***ers", freed, but still "gun n***ers" and subject to all the Jim Crow laws the bigots can muster.

• Most importantly we must be responsible with our new tool. Challenging restrictions on RPGs, tanks, artillery, and even machine guns needs to be off the table. Just tell people, "That's not at issue here." When they insist, tell them there is no point in talking about it because it's not at issue.
• We need to just hammer the bigots who for decades have claimed it was a "collective right". Anytime one of them says anything about gun control remind the world this is the same guy that lied to everyone about what the Second Amendment really means. Capture their quotes now before they try to rewrite history. Make them eat those words every time they open their mouth.
• The bigots lied before and they are probably lying again. Make them completely justify every word and nuance. Put them and their organizations under the strictest scrutiny we can possibly deliver.
• Remind the world the CCRKBA/GOA/JPFO/NRA/SAF/etc. was right. These are the people that have been defending inalienable civil rights and have been vilified by lying bigots all these years.
• Attack, attack, attack. You don't win a war by playing nothing but defense. We must choose the battles, the skirmishes, and the conflicts.
• 18 USC 241 and 242. It is a right. Those that oppose it are criminals. Tell your prosecutors, tell your representatives, tell the media, tell it to the bigots faces.
• We must politically destroy the opposition. If nothing else I expect can financially destroy the organizations. We can probably turn a Heller victory in at least a moderate financial win for the pro gun side and even though the bigots might be able to get a short term financial boost I expect this ruling will impair their ability to raise funds long term. Their supporters will realize they have been lied to and it won't sit well that they have been supporting a lie.
• Gun owners have been and are victims. Yeah, I know, it doesn't feel right to portray ourselves that way, but it's a powerful tool and it's true.

That's just what I can come up with off the top of my head. Think about it and try to realize that we have a completely new game with brand new rules here. Yes, technically the rules haven't changed they are just being enforced for the first time in, well, forever. But the things we can do now that we have rule book the other side is forced to accept changes the picture. Instead of arguing about the rule book we can now play the game.

I'm going to add some of these soon:

• Register to Vote
• Write Your Reps (Congress)
• Write Your Reps (State/Local)
• Write the Media

I know a little something about state constitutional RKBA and I can tell you that Gura made exactly the wrong argument-- he started talking about how courts had interpreted these provisions 100 years later. Stevens was having none of this: he was allowed to make his point that it was 12-2 for a collective right in the early state constitutions. The correct argument was to put this in historical context: the citizens had just fought and won a revolution. Everybody was armed-- what the state constitutions were saying was:"Hey, we will never disarm the militia like the British just did!" The English did something similar after they kicked James II out-- they put a provision in their bill of rights guaranteeing an individual right for Protestants to have guns for personal protection. Stevens also made a big deal about this English bill of rights language showing that the english predecessor to the second amendment allowed parlimentary regulation of the right.

Gura could have neatly wrapped both these issues up together: The English Bill of Rights was adopted in the context of a revolution against a Catholic King who had disarmed the Protestants and ignored Parliament. The state bills of rights were adopted in the context of a revolution against an imperial power who had disarmed the militia.

Pennsy was an outlier because it was full of Quakers who were pacifists, and so they made the right one of self defense rather than military. Vermont had like 12 people in it when they became a state so they basically cribbed Pennsy's constitution to save money. The Federal Bill of Rights was adopted in the context of nation-building: the convention toned down the states' fire-breathing militia rhetoric in the first clause of the second amendment and then, in the second clause, reaffirmed the common law RKBA of individuals which was protected by the English bill of rights but, without making it explicity subject to congressional regulation.

Mike Brown
March 19, 2008
Lewiston Pistol Club email list, Heller Argument.
[Mike is our resident lawyer at the club and top dog at Idaho SSA.--Joe]

I have lots to say but a bunch of Boomershoot stuff to get done has a higher priority for me.

In the meantime; Alan is reassuring:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end

DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/18/08

Recovering from the Whirlwind of the Day

Heller Case Goes Better Than Expected

by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases

The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.

When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right  under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High  Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights  experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of  relief -- we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
 
The transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June,  when the decision is expected, and I’m working without the benefit of that  at the moment. Digesting the fleeting and immensely complex speech  that took place for one hour and thirty-eight minutes a few hours ago,  it’s hard to see how any line of thought could be strung together to  support the idea that the D.C. total ban on operable firearms at home can be  seen as reasonable regulation, even though Mr. Dellinger, the city’s  attorney, tried to suggest it was. He was shot down on this repeatedly, found no quarter from any of the Justices, though several found room to move on what amounts to reasonable restrictions.

And it is easy to see, from the non-stop rapid-fire comments and questions of eight of the Justices (Thomas asked nothing, extending his legendary running silence), how even the most permissive standard of review imaginable for gun-ban laws, could tolerate the District’s level of  intolerance toward some sort of right to keep and bear arms.

That would give the pro-rights side what it so sorely wants – an admission that the Second Amendment protects something for “the people,” and the rest of that pie can be baked later.

Dellinger tried to suggest that rifles, shotguns and handguns had different usefulness, actually implying rifles are better for self defense in an urban home, because handguns were so inherently bad or dangerous that cities had a legitimate interest in banning them, but the Court  wasn’t buying it, and noting that D.C.’s ban banned everything.

Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:

* Original intent, and actions and writings of the colonies at the time of adoption;

* The meanings of the words, though not to the extent some people had anticipated;

* Separability of the terms keep and bear, whether they represented one right or two, how one could exist without the other, if they had civilian meanings or military ones, if you are “bearing” arms to go hunting  and more;

* The scope of the right covered, and whether personal or military  protections stood alone, dependent or had preference over each other;

* The “operative” and and preamble clause, and their relationship,  meaningfulness, and interactivity with each other;

* The types of weapons that might be covered by the term “arms,”
 accepting the idea that some weapons fall outside a sense of militia arms,  like “plastic guns” (that’s what they were called) that could escape  airport metal detection, or “rocket launchers” (actually a commonly used  modern militia arm in some countries experiencing insurgencies, a point  that did not come up), and especially machine guns, a repeated point  which the Justices did not resolve, especially since it has become the  standard issue firearm for our modern armed forces and confused the Miller  doctrine of commonly used arms;

* The rise and meaning of strict scrutiny, a doctrine that evolved  around the First Amendment and had no actual root in the Constitution, and  whose actual definition was fluid and with little consensus.

 

Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or  only a few guns, or if a collector couldn’t complete a set like a stamp  collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into a  demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need to  have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a .270,  which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers  missed because they were focused on Scalia;

Noting that Massachusetts in colonial times regulated the storage of  gunpowder (it had to be kept upstairs as a fire precaution), Breyer asked  if there isn’t a lineage to permissible restrictions, and the Court  generally agreed. The point of contention, and it would not go away, was  where that line was drawn, and again and again the D.C. absolute ban  was found violative in its absoluteness. The decision to test the  protection of 2A against this law in particular was a brilliant stratagem.

Dellinger either deliberately misled the Court, or didn’t understand  the D.C. ban law (as hard to believe as that is, and it could come back  to bite him), because, in trying to make it appear less odious than it  was, he:

* Suggested D.C. would carve out an exception for an operable gun if it  were used in self defense -- which the law flatly does not abide (and  a point thoroughly undercut by Heller’s attorney Alan Gura, who pointed  out the District had such an opportunity twice and did not do so, and  in fact did the opposite);

* For use in self defense, a gun could be easily and quickly unlocked  and brought to bear, a point undercut by Chief Justice Roberts who had  to fight to get an admission that the gun had to be reloaded as well,  since the D.C. law banned loaded and unlocked arms;

* That lead to a wonderful exchange in which Dellinger said a gun can  be simply unlocked quickly -– he actually said he could do it in three  seconds, after demonstrating a poor understanding of how a lock  (available at a “hardware store” nearby) fits on a gun with or without  “bullets” in it;

* That lead to Scalia asking about turning a dial to find “3” and then  turning it the other way to find the next number;

* To which Roberts noted that, don’t you first have to turn on the  light having heard the sound of breaking glass, and then find your reading  glasses -- which got the biggest audience laugh of the day (there were  only a few other soft chuckles during the proceedings);…

OK, I recognize that this is a bit disjointed, and I’m working on an  unfamiliar machine, at the end of a grueling endurance test that involved  outrageous hours, little sleep, lousy diet, dire cold, miles of up and  downhill walking, and I’m getting pretty hungry. I’ll do a better job  over time, but I wanted to share some inside scoop you might not  otherwise get. Let me, before pausing for some chow (which we’ll have to go  out and find), convey some ambience.

Guests of the Court were ushered into the ground floor early on,  milling around (line waiters including my friend Bob were prepped on the  white marble steps outside). It was a who’s who inside and non-stop  on-your-toes meet and greet. John Snyder, lobbyist for CCRKBA/SAF, had read my  blog entry from last night, and introduced me to the companion on his  lobby bench… Dick Heller, of the Heller case.

A nice mild mannered guy, “I just want to be able to keep my guns.” He  said when they started this in 1994, they had no idea what they were  getting into, and in 1997 they began entertaining the idea that it could  go all the way and started raising funds. Now it had taken on a life of  its own and barely involved him. At 9:30 last night, he walked the  wait-to-get-in line and passed out cough drops. No one knew who he was. He  sat just behind me in the Courtroom. I lucked into the second row.

Directly in front of me was… Mayor Fenty, and I sat in the bright  reflected light of his pate. He turned, and in typical smiling politician  fashion extended his hand, shook mine, and said warmly, “It’s nice to see  you” as if we knew each other. Well at least, I knew him. One seat to  my right was Ann Dellinger, the city’s lawyer’s wife, who turned out to  be fascinating and a wealth of information. In a few moments, the  mayor relinquished his eat to the D.C. Chief of Police, but she didn’t turn  and say hi. Heady stuff. Everybody was a somebody.

Familiar faces were strewn about – there’s David Hardy on the other  side of the aisle, and Bob Dowlut had a front row seat. Stephen Halbrook,  one of my co-authors on Supreme Court Gun Cases had an early spot on  the Supreme Court bar-members line, and my other co-author, Dave Kopel, who  previously told me he would not be attending, turned out to be a  last-minute addition to the Respondant’s table at the head of the Courtroom.
 People who I think were on a better “tier” than I, like Joe Olson,  Clayton Cramer and others, didn’t luck into a seat and listened to  disembodied voices from the lawyers lounge outside the Courtroom.

Three calls for “sshhh” from a clerk at the front instantly dropped the  growing anticipatory cacophony to silence which then ramped up gently  until the next hiss for quiet. Three minutes to go and a call for  silence left everyone with their own thoughts until a tone sounded, the  aides signaled us to rise, God Bless This Court was spoken, and we were  underway.

By a stroke of luck, Justice Thomas was assigned the reading of a decision of a prior case, and we got to hear his baritone voice, which often remains mute throughout. New members of the Supreme Court bar were sworn in, and Justice Roberts asked Mr. Dellinger to begin, which he did promptly.

More later.

Alan.

Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Bloomfield Press
Scottsdale, Arizona
602-996-4020
alan@gunlaws.com
http://www.gunlaws.com

Go to my site for this and all future postings, use the email signup on the home page to get direct posts, or get RSS  feeds from the blog site, http://www.PageNine.org

 

alan@gunlaws.com
Bloomfield Press, Phoenix
602-996-4020
http://www.gunlaws.com

This from a law student:

Pat Harvey, a 24-year-old second-year law student at George Washington University, said : "If a democratically elected city council has had a law on the books for 30 years, it's not the court's job to overturn it."

Shall we start discussing laws outlawing abortion and enforcing racism that were overturned? Should those laws have been outside the domain of the court?

Sebastian tells us there will be live blogging from the SCOTUS Blog.

Expect the NRA to update their Heller page.

Expect Countertop to give us an early report also.

Bitter is outside the Supreme Court and feeding info to Sebastian.

Update: The SCOTUS Blog appears to be one of the best places. Here is a picture from outside:

Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerated rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all—enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns. Yet preservation of human life is also the government’s chief regulatory interest in arms. Constitutional review of gun laws thus finds both individual and governmental interests at their zenith.

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[As I write this the oral arguments have just started. I'm anxiously scanning websites and listening to the news for hints as to what happened.--Joe]

Not that #9. Keep your mind out of the cat house (or the governors office).

Uncle says his state is #6. And in the comments Kevin says his state is number #5. So where is Idaho? We are in the top 10 at #9. But wait, Uncle and Kevin were counting from the opposite end of the scale.

Idaho, as a state, is the 9^th safest state in the U.S. That is up from number 12 in 2007.

Tomorrow is a very big day in history for gun rights activists and even in the legal history of this country. I expect the only bigger legal day in my lifetime will be when the decision is announced in a few months. For some reason it never occurred to me to attend the oral arguments; to be a part of history in the making. To be able to say, "I was there and I heard it with my own ears and saw the sweat dripping from the lawyers who were fighting to win what will probably be the most important case of their lives."

Others are there and will be a part of the history being made tomorrow. And they deserve those places much more than I do so it's appropriate that I'm at the opposite side of the continent working on Plan B should it ever be needed.

One of the people who earned a seat at tomorrows event sent me an email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end

DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/17/08

24 Hours Prior to Heller Case

by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases

More people are on line in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for the D.C.
gun ban case tomorrow than seats are available, and the temperature is hovering above freezing, but that's not stopping them.

Bob Blackmer and I were the first to arrive, Sunday night about 5 p.m., answering the big question of -- Would two nights in advance be enough
-- aside from did we have endurance to pull that off.

A few moments later, Jason and Dan arrived from Pennsylvania with sleeping bags and the same question in mind -- would they be in time for the biggest Second Amendment case in the nation's history, and, yes, they were. With no one else around, and the Sup. Ct. police officer pumped for all the info he might have (precious little), Bob and I left for our hotel, confident that we would be in time in the a.m., and Jason and Dan became numbers one and two in line, a distinction the media would dwell on the next day. (Reporters kept zeroing in on Jason since he was number one in line, and fortunately, he was articulate, a poli sci grad, not the bubba the media so often isolates as a "typical"
example.)

Because the line formed two nights in advance (kind of), and because local ABC-TV carried that news (with images)and bloggers spread it, people began arriving first at midnight, and then at the crack of dawn, panicked about access. Bob awoke in the hotel and departed in time to arrive well before 8 a.m., making him 7th, and I ran around looking for propane for his porta-heater (the airline allowed the heater but not the fuel). I was fortunate to have a reserved seat, so it didn't matter that I arrived at 10 a.m., and that didn't matter either, since I was now #16. I was the only person, the whole day, schmoozing on the line, running errands for people, enjoying the atmosphere, but with a reserved seat and a bed waiting for me at night.

People had full blown lounge chairs, sleeping bags, blankets, food... a regular shanty town developed and as police had advised, the line self regulated. Physical position was a non-issue, since everyone knew their place, and Sarah, a Harvard law student, took it on herself to start a list and gather everyone's arrival time and position number. People milled around at will, confident they would not lose their cherished place in line. It was a community.

Almost everyone was a law student, almost no one would qualify as a "gunnie" (well, maybe a small handful) but nearly everyone was on the side of Heller, advocating for a strong Second Amendment. The conversations were electric, a bunch of well educated, thoughtful, intelligent people self selected for a historic moment. When was the last time you saw a line of people hanging out reading legal briefs?

The promise was for 50 seats for the public, but the Marsahll's office was clear to me that this number could change, and would only be known in the morning, giving a distinct feeling it would shrink as "dignitaries" decided to attend at the last minute.

By 2:30 p.m. Monday, today, the day before the case, 32 people were in line, neatly numbered thanks to Sarah (and everyone in line ahead of them). The lucky (maybe) 50th person arrived at 4:45 p.m., and folks continued to arrive and queue up, hoping against hope for a greater number of seats, or line abandoners.

No paid place holders were apparent.

The most novel legal theories were:

-- The case could be decided on standing, with the Court concluding Heller didn't really have any after all, and the case falling apart on those grounds (highly unlikely, but it shook up conversations);

-- The Court would parse "keep" and "bear," finding an individual right, but applying strict scurtiny to "keep" and rational basis standard of review for "bear," effectively gutting the Second Amendment;

-- A decision narrower than everyone expects would get a nine to zero affirmation of an individual right (a seven-to-two split got a lot of voice);

-- The Solicitor General would recant his position (calling for reduced scrutiny and a remand of the case), artfully saying that was a mistake or oversight, an extremely unlikely but appealing (to some) possibility that would get Clements out of supposed hot water and be talked about, well, forever;

-- No one expects anything but an individual right finding, but the level of scrutiny for any law anywhere was up for grabs;

-- Obviously, no one has a clue, but you get the idea of what was going on in the cold, windy, sleep deprived, hard scrabble concrete world of Hellertown in front of the Court.

As for me, I'm sun burned, exhausted, undernourished, but at least in a hotel lobby, getting ready for what sleep I can and an early start to what will be an amazing day tomorrow. I'll relieve Bob so he can use the Court restroom to shuck his thermals, freshen up, stash his goods in the Court lockers, grab some chow in the Court cafeteria (great food, low low subsidized prices), and join the rabble in the cheap seats upstairs.

Written without adequate review or a spell checker, I reserve the right to change any of this... will attempt a swift review of the orals as soon after as I can muster.

Alan.

alan@gunlaws.com
Bloomfield Press, Phoenix
602-996-4020
http://www.gunlaws.com/
All posts will be on the website... soon.

Last week I ordered some supplies. I picked up the cardboard boxes for the targets last Thursday and the Potassium Chlorate was just delivered (as in Barb is on the phone this very second asking where to put it). Everything is on schedule.

I'm pleased but somewhat surprised. It is a news story on the Heller case rather than an editorial disguised as news.

Ry was on site this weekend, took some pictures, and reported "The Boomershoot site was a snowy marsh".

Yup. It sure is. And with Boomershoot only six weeks away one might be quite reasonably be concerned about the conditions we will have for the event. Will it be nothing but mud or even still have some snow?

Anything is possible but here are some pictures from 1999 to give us some hints about how things dried up back then:

Boomershoot target area March 7^th 1999.

Target area April 25^th 1999

Shooting area April 25 1999.

In 1999, seven weeks prior to the event, the ground was covered with snow and even more "in the deep freeze" than this year. Yet by the day of the event the ground was ground was damp (I remember the picture above being taken*) but clearly it wasn't so muddy that people couldn't shoot directly from the ground. Hence there is nothing to be particularly worried about at this time.

I probably will take some more pictures this coming weekend and examine the site two weeks and probably one week before the event. I'll keep you posted.

---

* I was trying to connect with a half-pint milk carton at 600 yards away with my AR-15 to see if the .223 could detonate the targets at that range. It was particularly challenging because of the wind (see the streamer flying essentially horizontal?). I fired about 60 rounds without getting a detonation. Later examination of the target showed that I had gotten one solid hit and a couple of nicks. It did not detonate. The target recipe has been modified extensively since then although at 600 yards the .223 is still marginal for both wind and ability to detonation the targets.

On July 6, 1775, after Lexington and Concord, after General Gage had declared martial law in Boston on June 12 of that year, Congress issued the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. In the Declaration the Congress states, as one of the reasons for taking up arms, that Gage had disarmed the people of Boston and seized their weapons. Finally, one year after the Declaration of Causes, the Continental Congress concluded that it was forced to declare independence.

It would seem strange if the authors of the Bill of Rights were to insist upon protecting other rights against government interference yet exclude from that protection the auxiliary right which is necessary to protect the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. Recall that the confiscation of private arms was list as one of the causes for taking up arms against the Crown. Recall that the Declaration of Right asserted that we are entitled to the protection of the laws of England, including the right to arms for self-defense, which was declared to be our birthright which was restored by act of parliament. Would they have written such amendments to protect against oppressive government, having recently experienced oppressive government, without protecting the auxiliary right which is necessary to protect the one right without which no other right may be enjoyed? Of course, as we have said, contemporary thinkers believed that this right had been secured in the Second Amendment.

At the time Madison wrote the Second Amendment, there was a right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This right was believed, by the Framers, to be an right inalienable. Every word of the Constitution, and the articles of amendment, was written, approved, and ratified by men who believed this.

James H. Warner
February 2008
Brief for amici curiae Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in support of respondent.
[Only one more day until oral arguments.--Joe]

I sort of remember that picture being taken now--and thinking, "No one will really notice, will they?" (notice the smirk on my face). Of course I have had my hand down her shirt so often for the last 30+ years that by now Barb is almost oblivious to it.

Mr. Completely politely ignores it and tells us about the other joys of attending the Gun Blogger Rendezvous and urges you to sign up for the next one.

It made me smile:

Consumption of alcohol is a threat that costs hundreds of innocent lives every year in Virginia, many of them children. We must stop giving in to the alcohol lobby and enact reasonable restrictions on the sale of alcohol for outside the home consumption! As you are no doubt aware, Virginia does not have "bars" in the traditional sense of the word. They have restaurants that are also licensed to serve alcohol. Although, there are establishments which are truly "bars" that are very thinly disguised as restaurants. This circumvention of the law is known as the deadly "restaurant loophole."

There's more too.

In 1946 there were 34,400 civilian firearms per 100,000 Americans and the murder rate was 6.9 per 100,000 population; 60 years later in 2004, gun ownership had almost tripled (85,000 guns per 100,000). Yet the murder rate had actually declined to 5.5 per 100,000. This evidence discredits the simplistic notion that increasing the civilian gunstock produces concomitant (or any) increases in murder.

Marc James Ayers
February 8, 2008
Brief of criminologists, social scientists, other distinguished scholars and the Claremont Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Only two more days until oral arguments.--Joe]

Many of the proponents of gun control have commented on the need to restrict other constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to enforce gun control or prohibition laws. A federal appellate judge urged the abandonment of the exclusionary rule in order to better enforce gun control laws. Malcolm Wilkey, Why Suppress Valid Evidence?, Wall Street J., Oct. 7, 1977 at 14. A police inspector called for a "reinterpretation" of the Fourth Amendment to allow police to assault strategically located streets, round up pedestrians en masse, and herd them through portable, airport-type gun detection machines. Detroit Free Press, Jan. 26, 1977, at 4. Prominent gun control advocates have flatly stated that "there can be no right to privacy in regard to armament," Norville Morris and Gordon Hawkins, The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control (1970).

Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi
February 2008
Brief of Amicus Curiae Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent
[Only three more days until oral arguments.

These aren't the only outrages documented in the brief. Most of the others were familiar to me such as the laws enacted and enforced explicitly for the purposes of suppressing Italians (the Sullivan Act), blacks, and other minorities and enabling the Klan and other bigots.

To those that would say gun control doesn't mean encroaching on other guaranteed rights please remind them of the exceptions carved out of the Bill of Rights for the "wars" on drugs and terror.--Joe]

A friend sent me this link to a video (about 45 minutes long). The synopsis is:

Naomi Wolf on

It not only can happen here, it is happening here.

Mussolini created the blueprint (with inspiration from Lenin), Hitler elaborated on it, Stalin studied Hitler...

Here's how it works (notice how many Bush & Co. is using now.):

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Wolf's conclusion? Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is not enough. Prosecuting (and jailing) them for crimes committed is the only rational solution.

I wouldn't normally think my readers would be interested in this kind of stuff but something came up in this video that surprised me. She mentioned the 2^nd Amendment. Each time she immediately went on to something else. She just used the words, "Second Amendment" then, basically, changed the subject.

Are the extreme left wing people (the organization who owns website for this video and many others with a similar theme is based in San Fransisco) thinking it's time to consider the 2^nd Amendment as an individual right?

The so called "Gun Guy" seems to think there were or are some such thing as "local rights". I've never heard that phrase before. A quick check on Live Search and Google didn't reveal anything meaningful either.

It's times like this that one has to give serious consideration that he's just doing a poor job at a VPC blog. He obviously has no clue when he says crazy stuff like this:

No American should be held hostage to the stranglehold of the gun industry and gun enthusiasts who value firearms over life.

Philadelphia and cities like it should be able to determine their own law enforcement and gun violence prevention policies.

That’s a freedom that a city that is our cradle of liberty deserves to have.

Just, "Wow!". Cities have freedoms? Now one could argue that King George had freedoms, but not England. Americans fought for their individual liberty, not to replace one tyrant with another.

He's just loco, right?

Sometimes there are no compromises possible. This is one of those times:

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

A collective right view could logically include all variety of weapons currently within the federal arsenal, because the states would be empowered to arm themselves sufficiently to thwart those same federal forces. Pet. Br. 21. Given the fact that there is no Constitutional limitation upon the types of weapons that the federal government can possess, a collective states’ right position could logically require a similar freedom for the respective state militias. If the logic behind the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of states to maintain militias that constitute a counterweight to federal forces, as Petitioners contend, then states would logically be allowed to keep and bear even the most potent and destructive weapons of modern warfare.

Renee L. Giachino
February 11, 2008
Center for Individual Freedom
[Only four more days until oral arguments.

Wow! For some time now one of my biggest fears in this case was the concern the Court might have about the harmful consequences of deciding the 2^nd Amendment was an individual right. It never occurred to me the consequences of a decision that it is "state right" (there is no such thing, states have powers not rights) might be an even bigger issue--it means the individual states are constitutionally justified if they want nukes. I love it, sort of a Cornelian dilemma for the fuzzy liberals.--Joe]

What arrogance! Read this brief then tell me the following is something you would let the D.C. police get away with:

D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they're offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.

"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

The "amnesty means amnesty" line is a lie. Later in that same article they say:

If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

This isn't receiving universal approval:

Ronald Hampton, executive director of the National Black Police Association, questioned the Washington effort. As a lifelong D.C. resident and a former police officer, he said, he would not consent to his house being searched.

"They haven't earned that level of access or respect from the community," Hampton said.

I think Congress should issue hunting licenses with no bag limits on D.C. politicians and cops, no restrictions on baiting (I've heard recreational drugs and/or hookers work well), no restrictions on hunting zones, with bounties for ears turned in. After a couple weeks D.C. residents could start over with no new laws and all new public servants.

H/T to Uncle and Ravenwood for the link.

Here is the picture the New York Times has of Spitzer's playmate:

Here is the picture found elsewhere:

I wonder why the cropping of the picture. Was it just for space or was there some other reason?

---

As a side note the above pictures reminds me some of Barb and I can't help but think she would have made a lot more money had she not married me when she was 21. Here is a picture of her at about age 18:

Fellow Lewiston Gun Club and IPSC/Steel/etc shooter Mike Brown has been working on strengthening the gun owner protections in Idaho. Technically Idaho already has a range protection law but it turns out it is essentially made of tissue paper and the anti-gun people can drive VW Micro Buses right through it.

Here is Mike's latest report. 

What interests me is the politics involved:

All of the concerns raised were red herrings (for instance: the police department won't be able to tell the cops which guns they can carry) planted to give cover to closeted anti-gunners who want to vote against freedom!

They find excuses, no matter how flimsy and transparent, to avoid being open and honest about their motivations. One law enforcement person told Mike he was 110% behind the proposed law. Currently the county limits them to four night training exercises per year and they must be done by 10:00 PM. The proposed law will overthrow that restriction and be very unpopular with the "furry liberals" as the LEO called them.

If you are a voter in Idaho please sign up for the alerts Mike sends out and contact your representative when he asks for your help.

Amici therefore set out below the right to have and use arms in English law by the time of the Founding. Amici then show how early American authorities claimed and extended that right, including in interpreting the Second Amendment. The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service; individuals might exercise the right collectively, but the unquestioned core was a broadly applicable and robust right to "keep" firearms in one's home for self-defense. Even the "well recognized exceptions" confirmed this core right, by focusing on the carrying, not the keeping, of weapons. That core right is what the District of Columbia tramples. It bans keeping a handgun in one's home (including use there in self-defense) and keeping any functional firearm in one's home.

C. Kevin Marshall
February 8, 2008
Brief of the Cato Institute and history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Only five more days until oral arguments.

This brief makes it very clear the individual right to keep and bear arms was universally agreed upon, not only in America, but in England at the time of the writing of the 2^nd Amendment. It is not a recent "invention" by the Apex of The Triangle of Death.--Joe]

Dr. Joe is further validated:

LONDON: A steamy sex session in the morning can keep you in good health, say British researchers.

According to a research from Queen’s University in Belfast, a good morning session at least three times a week, decreases the risk of heart attack or stroke by half and a regular session improves circulation, thereby reducing blood pressure.

According to a study in New Scientist, a steamy session twice a week enhances IgA, an antibody that provides protection against microbes that multiply in body secretions, reports the ‘Sun’. Morning sex also helps in alleviating arthritis and migraine. It burns around 300 calories an hour that simultaneously diminishes the risk of developing diabetes.

Moreover, an American study involving 300 sexually active women whose partners did not use condoms revealed that they were less prone to depression.

Sex increases the production of testosterone that provides stronger bones and muscles thus helping to stave off osteoporosis.

A good morning session can make the hair shine and skin glow by raising the output of oestrogen and other hormones which are associated with it.

According to Yale School of Medicine researchers, having morning sex can aid in averting endometriosis, a condition where the tissue that normally lines the uterus, grows in other parts of the pelvis.

I said some nice things about an ATF agent and the DOJ takes notice. Good.

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map) Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; (R1 1.1); .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768</