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, …

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.

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.

I've recently been made aware that a bunch of folks from a local group plan to open carry into restaurants on July 1st, when House Bill 89 goes into effect. This is a stupid and ultimately destructive idea.

Let's get one thing straight, folks: open carry spooks the sheep.

It may be common in rural areas, but that’s not the way it is in suburbia. People aren’t used to seeing guns, and many associate them with crime and mayhem. I know it stems from ignorance, but if it’s going to change, it’s going to take awhile.

If someone’s uncomfortable about guns, being stuck in line next to a guy carrying one isn’t going to change that. It’s just going to make them suspicious and nervous. People in that state are unpredictable, especially in groups.

Don’t give me arguments about “educating people.” It’s ego, and that's all it is. Somebody's got something to prove, and whatever excuses they choose to make, it all comes down to alpha-male chest pounding. If you want to be the center of attention, run for office or get a record deal. If a firearm is a means to boost your self esteem, you need therapy, not a gun.

The bill has passed, but we’re not out of the woods yet. We can likely expect litigation against the “parking lot” provisions of HB 89, something Governor Perdue alluded to when he singed the bill.

Workers at MARTA have gathered 1000 signatures on a petition demanding “bulletproof shields” on buses, and I expect the Georgia Restaurant Association to do some serious kicking and screaming on the issue.

The editorial board at the AJC has been contributing to the furor, and Mayor Shirley Franklin has made her opinion known:

“The presumption needs to be, in order to have a safe city, that there are no concealed weapons. And only those who are acting criminally might have them.”

Yeah, go ahead and read that again.

It bears mention that Franklin is a member of the Mayors against Illegal Guns coalition (everything’s a “coalition” with the Left), and of course, their funding comes from a $175,000 Joyce Foundation grant. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (who knows all about disarming the populace and leaving them at the mercy of criminals) is also a member of the organization.

Perhaps all that time and money would be better spent fixing the Atlanta’s $140 million deficit. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a lowly taxpayer.

I got the phone call about 3:15 this afternoon, and at 3:30, local news confirmed it. Sonny Perdue signed HB 89 into law.

Bear in mind, this does not go into effect until July 1st.

Frankly, I hadn't expected him to sign it. It seemed most likely that he'd let it run to midnight and pass quietly into law without his intervention.

Sorry to sound negative, but he's not exactly been our friend in the past. He has a habit of dictating things based on what he thinks is "right." He's refused to take a stand on gun rights either way, and letting the bill pass without his signature would have been a way of saying, "I didn't support it, but I didn't oppose it either."

Sam Walton would be ashamed at what his company has become.

Not content to mistreat their employees, Wal-Mart has now decided to insult and alienate a significant portion of its customer base. They've caved in to New York Mayor Bloomberg's crusade to ban guns and established a policy that really gives me pause.