Led by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court struck down the 2nd Circuit's decision in Ricci v. Destefano (pdf) this morning. He was joined by Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. The decision shows a conservative-leaning court interpreting Title VII in its original spirit, which was to be completely colorblind:

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers
cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. (p. 19)

It's worth noting that the balance of Justices in this case is exactly the same as it was in Heller. When the question of incorporating the 2nd Amendment under the aegis of the 14th comes before the Court next year, we should be able to expect a 5-4 margin.

Our current situation is strikingly similar to the one existing between 1930 and 1937 in the Hughes Court. Much of Roosevelt's early New Deal legislation was stalled by a bloc of conservative Justices comprised of McReynolds, Devanter, Sutherland and Butler. Referred to as the Four Horsemen, they were frequently joined in their verdicts by Chief Justice Hughes.

Back then, the Court was the only branch of government keeping FDR's agenda in check, and his exasperation with their resistance (and influence) led him to propose a politically disastrous measure to force a change in the balance of the Court. Soon after, Devanter retired and was replaced by Hugo Black, and the Court became more sympathetic to the New Deal. Still, a point had proven: the Supreme Court is the true Third Branch, and is on equal footing with the other two (*).

So now we've got our Four Horsemen in Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts, with Kennedy often concurring. In this administration, we're going to need them.

Sunday morning, I put some Ahrends on the Model 18 and took her shooting. Even with the bargain-basement stuff, she does me proud:

According to Wikipedia, a penny is 0.75" in diameter. 3/4 of an inch. Double action.

Man, did it feel good shooting that!

Today's the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller v. District of Columbia. James Maloney, appellant in Maloney v. Cuomo, has filed a petition for his case to be heard before the Supreme Court next session. The case is now Maloney v. Rice (pdf). Kathleen Rice is the current District Attorney for Nassau County.

The petition follows and supplements the 14th Amendment claim Mr. Maloney made before the 2nd Circuit in February. It points out that the Circuit Courts are now divided three ways on the question of 14th Amendment incorporation, which would demand that the Supreme Court rectify this discrepancy. It's worth noting that 7th Circuit Justice Easterbrook also acknowledged this disparity in NRA v. Chicago.

Maloney also recognizes the existence of the pending petitions from Alan Gura and the NRA, and he suggests consolidating all three:

Either or both of the pending petitions for certiorari on the Second Amendment incorporation issues arising out of National Rife Association would be fitting for this Court to grant because those cases present the same Fourteenth Amendment issues concerning applicability of the Second Amendment to the States invoked in this petition. Indeed, consolidating those cases with this case and granting certiorari over all of them as a unit would put before the Court the fullest possible range of factual and legal settings in which to consider and resolve the burning issue of Second Amendment incorporation. (p. 25)

Such a measure would represent the largest, broadest coalition of 2nd Amendment resources in American history towards a single goal.

The Smith & Wesson K-Frame in .38 Special was a resounding success from its inception. In 1931, they introduced the K-22 Outdoorsman, a 6" K-Frame in .22. The platform was an immediate hit, and its utility and popularity have never waned.

The K-22 was designed for the "high velocity" .22 rounds that were in vogue at the time. There had been concerns over the possibility of case head failures, so D.B. Wesson bored the cylinder with recessed chambers. This approach would also be used on the company's Magnum caliber revolvers until the late 20th century, when stronger metallurgy (and better ammo design) rendered it unnecessary.

For many collectors, the recessed cylinder is a symbol of a bygone era of better craftsmanship. I'm not sure I agree, but given the choice, I'll certainly take a revolver with pinned barrel and recessed cylinder over one that doesn't have those features. I don't know why; perhaps it's just the allure.

The year after its introduction, the K-22 would see service on the American Olympic pistol team. After a few slight changes, the K-22 Outdoorsman became the K-22 Masterpiece in 1940. In 1957, Smith & Wesson assigned model numbers to their pistols, and the K-22 became the Model 17. Despite its demotion in nomenclature, affectionate shooters continued to refer to it as the Masterpiece, and with good reason.

I'm not a fan of the man's music, but there's no denying he had talent. He released the highest-selling record in history. I doubt there is a person alive who doesn't know who he was.

Nor will I speak for his mistakes and possible misdeeds. For a time, he deliberately fostered a surreal public image, and though he stopped doing so in the 1990's, his eccentric persona would continue to haunt him through the rest of his life. There's no doubting he made some poor choices.

But that's not the point. We all watched this terrified, lonely, shell-shocked man disintegrate over the last two decades, and we were entertained. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

So, there I am looking for our President's reaction to the unrest over the Iranian elections. His response? To express "deep concern." He made it clear that the depths of his concern were shared not only by "the world," but by Ahmedinijad, who he referred to as the "Supreme Leader." Great.

He's also "deeply concerned" about the fighting in Gaza, terrorism in Pakistan, and the two American journalists currently languishing in a North Korean jail. On prior ocassions, he's expressed "deep concern" for the state of the American automobile industry and Hurricane Gustav.

While he did all kinds of nothing, Hillary Clinton told the press she was "deeply concerned" when, for the first time in almost two centuries, pirates took control of an American ship.

Heck, he's probably "deeply concerned" about climate change as well, but I'm bored of digging up links. Point is, "deep concern" is this guy's answer for everything.

It appears that the DC Voting Rights act (H.R.157/S.160) has been shelved, much to the chagrin of its supporters. It was approved in the Senate by a 61-37 margin, despite the inclusion of Senator Ensign's amendment, which imposed enactment of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. It seems the House isn't having it.

If this situation seems familiar, that's because Congress was forced to authorize the carry of firearms in national parks last month if they wanted the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights to pass. This situation ruffled more than a few feathers, but it set up an interesting precedent. Essentially, if Congress wants to get a spendy bill passed in a timely matter, they're going to have to make concessions to gun rights.

And frankly, the irony is just delicious.

This week, 23 state Attorney Generals signed off on a letter (pdf) to Attorney General Eric Holder, in which they advised against any sort of renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Part of the letter reads,

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional rights –including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particuarly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose. (…) we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who has had a hit-and-miss record with gun rights, signed the letter.

This follows a similar letter sent by 65 Democratic Congressmen to Holder in March.

Ten years ago, these sorts of initiatives would have been unthinkable. Given the current administration's well-documented contempt for gun rights, it would seem even more unlikely now. Yet here we are.

We're winning, folks.

The .22 Long Rifle cartridge has a long and rich heritage, and it is superb for target shooting and small-game hunting. As a self-defense loading, it has several major shortcomings. There are very few realistic situations where it can be considered viable.

To its credit, the .22 LR produces only slight recoil, facilitaing easier follow-up shots. The size of the cartridge allows it to be chambered in smaller pistols. Ammunition is cheap and widely available, and in countries that ban civilian use of service calibers, it may be the only alternative available.

Balancing out its meager virtues, one must consider the fact that rimfire ignition can be unreliable. Quite simply, you're going to have duds. This is patently unacceptable for a platform that should be expected to perform under unpredictable and dire circumstances. A gun that fails in the face of violence is the most dangerous thing you could possibly hold in your hand.

Most loadings tend to generate a great deal of fouling, and smaller designs must be kept absolutely clean to ensure regular function.

Ballistic performance is disappointing to say the least. From a pistol, you're sending a small bullet weighing ~30-40gr at subsonic velocities. Even the well-regarded CCI Stinger load fails to achieve 12" of penetration in gelating, long considered to be the minimum acceptable standard (pdf).

If you must carry a small gun, there are plenty of small handguns in production in proven calibers such as .38 Special or 9mm.

The Tennessee Senate has voted 22-7 to approve their state's version of the Firearms Freedom Act ("the Act"). It passed in the House 87-1 and now awaits the governor's signature. Despite any misgivings he may have, Bredesen knows that the legislature has the votes to override a veto, as they did today with another gun bill. The Act will pass, with or without the governor's blessing.

Tennesse now joins Montana, in which Governor Schweitzer signed the same bill on April 15. The Montana Act goes into effect October 1st. Then we'll see the fireworks.

It's is also making headway in Texas, Alaska, South Carolina and Minnesota.

In each state, the Firearms Freedom Act asserts the state's sovereignty within its own borders and rejects Federal regulation over arms possessed within the borders of those states. Traditionally, the Federal government has justified such meddling via the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as well as through 18 USC § 922.

Strictly speaking, the Fed's mandate only applies in situations involving commerce across state lines, and in matters that could affect said activites. If an item is assembled in-state, from parts manufactured in-state, and it isn't sold across state lines, then there's a real question of whether of not the Federal government can interfere.

Taking cues from the 9th and 10th Amendments, many states are saying that it can't.

It took less than a week, but the 7th Circuit has passed down their judgement in National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago [pdf]. They disagree with Nordyke and find that the 14th Amendment does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against state and local governments.

I fully expected this. What I didn't expect was for the 7th to so gleefully and eagerly hand the ball off to the Supreme Court, which is what they're doing here.

Presiding Judge Easterbrook argues,

Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller rejected arguments that depended on the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), holds that the privileges and immunities clause does not apply the Bill of Rights, en bloc, to the states. [p. 2]

There's just one little problem with that logic: this isn't about the privileges and immunities clause, and it never was. Nordyke found incorporation through the due process clause, the same clause under which all other civil rights have been incorporated.

Interesting that the due process clause is never mentioned in Easterbrook's opinion. Very interesting.