I mentioned this guy before, and recently, an acquaintance found his name for me.  He's an Atlanta Councilman for District 2, which is the area around the Capitol building and Georgia State University.

Mr. Hall's reaction to the ruling in DC vs Heller last week was:

"We need tighter restrictions to ensure that…particularly young people…young African American males as well are not allowed access to these weapons."

Read that again.  He wants laws to keep guns out of the hands of black folks, presumably folks like Nikki and her boyfriend from the video.  This is one of the most condescending, racist things I've heard in a long while.

Here's a handy pamphlet [pdf] that helps residents of the District of Columbia understand the effects of the Heller decision.  They plan to begin allowing registrations on July 17th.

The parent website is inaccessible, so I can't verify any of the specifics of the regulation.  Although there are numerous and strident statements about safe storage, there appears to be no legal requirement to lock guns or keep them unloaded.

They are making the process as hard as possible, while staying within the requirements of the ruling.  Applicants must:

Be 21 years of age
Be a DC resident
Provide two passport pictures
Submit fingerprints
Pay $48.00
Complete a "notarized firearms eligibility statement," and
Pass a 20-question multiple-choice test.

Oh, and the office is only open 7:00am-3:00pm during the week.  Of all the impediments they've set up, however, the worst are the last two.

Georgia Lt. Governor Cagle has appointed Senator Mitch Seabaugh of Sharpsburg to chair the Senate committee proposed in Resolution 819.  The committee will survey and elucidate the state's complex and often contradictory firearms laws.  SR 19 reads, in part:

WHEREAS, current Georgia laws applicable to the carrying of firearms are extensive, complex, ambiguous, scattered in various provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and frequently produce unintended results and confusion among Georgians who carry firearms, law enforcement officers, and the courts (…) in light of the above, it is now time to closely scrutinize and improve Georgia's

…

There were two dissenting opinions in the Heller case, authored by Stevens and Breyer.  Stevens takes the tack that the 2nd Amendment does not, and was never intended to, protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. He argues fervently that history suggests a militia-oriented power, rather than a right.

Of course, this flies in the face of innumerable sources, several of which are illuminated by Scalia.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it 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. DC vs Heller, Majority Opinion, p. 19

I've been hearing about the decision all day, and I've been discussing it with a great number of people.  In fact, I was even asked to speak to the local media.

I really look pale on camera.  I wish I could tan.

The resultant story was well-balanced, with the exception of a truly disgusting statement from District 2 Councilman Kwanza Hall.

Of course, we're seeing all kinds of hysterics from the Left.

I'll post more later, but here's the gist of it.  The Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, guarantee an individual right to own firearms.  The decision was 5-4, with notable dissent.  Regulations, including registration and licensing, are permitted, and overall, the waters are a bit murky.

The decision is available here [pdf].

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

p 54

Scalia wrote the majority opinion, supported by Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito.

Held:
1. 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.  Pp. 2–53.

(a) 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. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th Century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.  Pp. 56–64.

In some cases, a lack of forethought can create no end of confusion.  Take, for example, the “Thirty Eight.”  The 20th Century has seen innumerable .38-caliber loadings, and using the wrong one in your weapon could have some pretty disastrous results.

In fact, very few .38 cartridges actually use a .38 caliber bullet.  What follows is a quick tutorial on .38 cartridges.

A friend compares carrying a gun to wearing ladies' underwear.  It's comforting, and as good as it looks, it's not something you'd want to have to explain to a random person on the street.  It's a secret you keep to yourself, but one that could save your life one day (*).

It's vital to have one that fits the hand just right.  Under stress, the weapon needs a sure grip, and one in which the sights line up naturally.  The quality of grips is a rarely-mentioned factor in this.

It's not Big Oil.

It's not the Gay Agenda.

It's not even the Slightly Grim and Dour Agenda.

It's a shadowy organization far older and more powerful.

It's the Habsburg Nobility, gang.

Seems like everybody's got a petition these days.

I ask that you halt consideration of all pending judicial nominees from the Bush Administration who are hostile to reasonable gun control laws until a new president is sworn in next January. The American people don't need any more Second Amendment extremists from this lame-duck president.

The left is running scared because it looks as if one of their sacred cows is about to be taken away.  Screaming for stricter gun control is their way of "raising awareness," "doing something for the children," or even, "making a difference."  Once they've vented their spleen and chanted their slogans (preferably in a medium where all their friends can see them doing it), they can go back to their neighborhood coffee house, listen to not-too-weird jazz, and bask in the satisfaction of having been a "part of something important."

Essentially, it's a way of looking concerned without having to actually do anything.  A Supreme Court ruling in support of the 2nd Amendment as written is going to deal a swift blow to their pet cause, and they're just a tad bitter about it.

Normally, such behavior would only be an annoying exercise in self-promotion, but the gun-control lobby has some serious money, and some crafty ways of hiding it.

…and frankly, I like kicking hypocrites when they're down.

The aptly-named Quaristice.Quadrange.ep.ae is now up in its entirety on Bleep.  It's another 13 versions of tracks from Quaristice, comprising 149 minutes of material.

If you're keeping count, that's 4:50:26 of material they've released this year.