Yeah, I’m really late on this. I’m a procrastinator (Xenia! That doesn’t give you an excuse–do as I say, not as I do!). Buy early and often. Read more here.

The Georgia State Supreme Court was most vigorous in taking the Second Amendment literally rather than trying to twist the words to mean something other than what it actually says:

[When] did any legislative body in the Union have the right to deny to its citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms in defence of themselves and their country?

. . . [T]his is one of the fundamental principles, upon which rests the great fabric of civil liberty, reared by the fathers of the Revolution and of the country. And the Constitution of the United States, in declaring that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed, only reiterated a truth announced a century before, in the act of 1689, “to extend and secure the rights and liberties of English subjects”–Whether living 3,000 or 300 miles from the royal palace.

…

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans plead eloquently for this interpretation!

Unfortunately this was a 1846 case which makes it difficult to find and quote in present day cases and likely to be disregarded even though the Second Amendment hasn’t changed in the past two centuries.

Found via Gun Law News.

Again (yesterday I reported on this one) from the Second Amendment Foundation. Some libraries are blocking access to gun related materials such as Women and Guns magazine. SAF is joining forces with the ACLU on this one. Here is the actual complaint.

From the press release:

SAF and its co-plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the library district’s policy of using internet filters on publicly — available computer terminals to block access to constitutionally — protected speech, including publications such as Women & Guns magazine, which is owned by SAF. The library refuses to unblock such access even at the request of the plaintiffs

“The NCRL’s policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters upon request is restricting the ability of speakers, content providers and patrons of the NCRL’s public library branches to access the contemporary marketplace of ideas,” the lawsuit states.

“We entered this lawsuit because citizens are being denied access to our website and information about our organization and publication,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “That clearly violates both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution.”

There are businesses (Cingular that I know of) that block Boomershoot.org and tell their employees it is because of “Criminal Skills”. I’m annoyed but it’s a business and as long as they just block access to their employees while at work I don’t have any grounds to complain about it. A public library blocking access is a completely different story. They need to be slapped down–hard. Go get ’em.

Via Say Uncle.

For years I didn’t understand why someone didn’t just take a case all the way to the supreme court and overthrow all the anti-gun laws in the country. After all, what part of “…shall not be infringed” didn’t they understand? And the 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment apply to the states and all the lesser political jurisdictions as well. But that was thinking rationally and I didn’t understand that neither people nor law are rational. It was explained to me that the Supreme Court would never rule such that thousands and thousands of laws were suddenly null and void after being enforced for decades. We have to get out of this mess the same way we got into it–one step at a time. It was Joe Waldron that explained that to me. I was skeptical and didn’t really understand–it wasn’t rational. The law said, “shall not be infringed”. Therefore that is the way they have to rule, right? Wrong.

I started reading some of the ruling from the courts and then I understood. Just look at how the various courts have interpreted U.S. versus Miller (see also the short version from JPFO) and you’ll understand too. They used the most tortured ‘logic’ to arrive at conclusions that no rational person could support. This happened in case after case until a the weight of those precedents became a sturdy brick wall even though Miller lost his case by the slimmest of margins and defense errors (the defense attorneys didn’t show up in court and did not present any case) and the lower courts extrapolated from this over the horizon into never-never land. I am no longer skeptical. I now believe.

Yesterday the Second Amendment Foundation announced they are taking one of those necessarily tiny steps in the courts to regain our gun rights. The press release is here. The complaint filed in court is here. I wish them well.

The company where I work matches my tax deductible donations to 501(C)(3) organizations. My sole donation beneficiary for next year is the Second Amendment Foundation.

Even though I could legally own a machine gun in Idaho I haven’t ever had the interest. They do have their application however. This video shows a plausible application. After I get my own helicopter I’ll reevaluate the bias I have against machine guns.

Video: GPMG vs Gattling

I’m a little bit surprised but very pleased with how firm the Prime Minister and cabinet are holding on to their intention to scrap the gun registry in Canada. If they can reverse the repression there it will help us to prevent it here:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day paid a visit to Dawson College yesterday to discuss Canada’s gun control laws with the mother of Anastasia De Sousa, the student killed in the Sept. 13 shooting, and wounded student Hayder Kadhim.

Members of the Dawson Gun Control Committee were also present.

Kadhim, 17, had originally asked to meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper to debate the Conservative government’s intention to abolish the long-gun registry, but Harper sent Day in his place.

Calling the meeting “productive,” Day seemed not to have changed his mind on the gun registry issue after the discussion at Dawson.

He said Canada should be investing its resources in cracking down on gangs and gun trafficking, and in tightening gun-licensing rules.

Day’s press aide said yesterday’s meeting was part of an extensive series of countrywide discussions with stakeholders over the gun-control issue.

Progressive Gun Control: Tushnet v. Cornell:

Both scholars agreed that the actual impact of any realistically achievable gun control policy would not have the sweeping effect on reducing gun violence that most would be hoping for. However, while Tushnet saw this as one reason to not waste effort on the issue, Cornell maintained that reframing expectations about the impact of gun control policy could be part of developing a credible, progressive argument in favor of regulations.

“Credible”? Notice it not a “rational” or “persuasive” or “convincing” argument. It’s a “credible” argument. In other words it doesn’t matter if an improvement in crime rates can be measured. It’s a good thing merely because regulation is what “progressives” do and they should feel good about doing it. “Progressives” regulate–it’s in their nature. This is what I do–it’s my nature and my arguments can be “forceful”. Perhaps Mr. Cornell should further “reframe his expectations”.

Molon Labe!

I think the reality is probably close to what Dave Kopel has to say:

The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms.

But that doesn’t mean we should sit back and relax. Wayne LaPierre has his own take on things:

We must start fighting today … or tomorrow, we’ll start over.

Spread the word to America’s gun owners.  If they’ve wandered away from NRA, it’s time to muster.  Sign up, recruit, enlist, renew, upgrade, get informed, get involved and get ready for battle again.

Of course Wayne has his own biases. Fear mongering helps his bottom line. But regardless of that what he says is probably good advice for gun owners. The more members the NRA has the more clout they have with the congress critters. The NRA lobbyists can really get a legislators attention by saying something like, “I have two emails already written and ready to send to our five (or seven or ten) million members. One says that you are a good guy and they should all donate $10 to your campaign. The others says you want to take their guns away and they should all donate $20 to your opponent. Maybe they won’t pay attention. Maybe it’s an empty threat but you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya punk?”