As Third Power, Say Uncle, Progun Progressive, and Dave Hardy have been pointing out our current FBI Director Robert Mueller “is not happy with the Supreme Court’s recent handgun ruling.”

But this isn’t the first time the Director of the FBI has acted as if he knew better than the courts. In 1995 there were hearings on the incident at Ruby Ridge. This was after Randy Weaver were acquitted of all charges except failure to show up in court (only Weaver, not Harris). Harris’s killing of Federal Marshal Degan was found to be justifiable homicide. Despite that jury finding FBI Director Louis Freeh repeatedly referred to Degan’s death as a murder. I recall, but can’t find the written transcript, him being called on this and responding something to the effect that he “fully respects the court system and abides by it. But Degan was still murdered.” If I could have jumped through the T.V. and grabbed him by the throat when he said that I would have. He cannot simultaneously respect the courts decision and claim Degan was murdered.

Mueller apparently thinks he is no less superior to the courts than Freeh thought he was. He needs to be reminded that he is a public servant and not a public master.

Update: Sebastian and the NRA-ILA have something to say as well. I overlooked them when I first made the post.

The ACLU blog post on the Heller decision has racked up 150 comments so far. Only one gives mild support of the ACLU position. Most are just as toxic as my comment (see also my blog post).

I wonder if they will get the message. I doubted it at first but now I’m beginning to wonder. Even incredibly bigoted newspaper editorials against gun owners get a small percentage of people supporting them.

Interesting stuff. The VPC blog author is really something special.

He/she must have borrowed Ronnie Barrett’s time machine to dig this one up.

The ACLU has a blog posting explaining their position on the 2^nd Amendment in a post Heller world:

So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

As always, we welcome your comments.

My comment is awaiting moderation. I wonder just how welcome it will be. I give it to you here in case it doesn’t see the light of day:

Fortunately it is the Supreme Court and not organizations such as the KKK or the ACLU that is the binding interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn’t enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations.

I had supported the ACLU in their support of the KKK because I thought the issue was one of free speech. Perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Perhaps the issue was the ACLU enjoys the company of similarly minded bigots.

Update: They posted my comment along with many others. The last time I looked all the comments were very critical of the postion the ACLU has taken.