Adam Williams was convicted in Indiana for distribution of narcotics and possession of a firearm as a felon in 2008.  He chose to appeal his conviction to the 7th Circuit on several points, one of which was the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).  The section in question bars convicted felons from owning firearms.

The Court's opinion is here [pdf].  Williams based his appeal in part on the Skoien decision, which has since been remanded.  The Court considered the applicability of that case in the current proceedings and found it wanting:

And although we recognize that § 922(g)(1) may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent, that is not the case for Williams. Even if the government may face a difficult burden of proving § 922(g)(1)’s “strong showing” in future cases, it certainly satisfies its burden in this case, where Williams challenges § 922(g)(1) as it was applied to him. Williams, as a violent felon, is not the ideal candidate to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). [p. 16]

Skoien considered the question of a misdemeanant, not a felon.  Furthermore, there is a big difference between a felony conviction for writing a few bad checks and one for violence.  Under the Skoien doctrine of "intermediate" scrutiny (and perhaps even strict scrutiny), the court finds that a ban on firearms possession by violent felons passes muster. Part of me agrees.

The 2nd Amendment Foundation is spearheading a lawsuit [pdf] to challenge Maryland's rigid scheme on the issuance of concealed carry permits.  In short, a civilian seeking a permit for "personal protection" must show "documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses."

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard should therefore meet the criteria.  According to the complaint, his home was broken into on Christmas Eve, 2002.  Woollard was beaten by the intruder, and it took police over two hours to respond to his wife's 911 call.  His assailant was sentenced to probation at first, then imprisoned after assaulting a police officer.

Upon the assailant's release only three years later, Mr. Woollard was issued a permit.  In 2009, his renewal was denied by the defendants, who cited a lack of evidence to "support apprehended fear (i.e. - copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, stalking).”

The man who assaulted Mr. Woollard in his home now lives three miles from him.  If that doesn't qualify as "apprehended fear," I'm not sure what does.

We've got our first post-McDonald decision [pdf], and it's a bit of a disappointment.  Judge Skyes' original decision, in which the 7th Circuit had applied strict scrutiny to the "core right" of the 2nd Amendment and "intermediate" scrutiny to the rest, has been overturned.

The Heller dicta regarding "presumptively lawful" regulations and "longstanding prohibitions" were on full display here.  I worry that those two phrases will continue to cause us trouble into the foreseeable future.

For now, the constitutionality of §922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) still stands, and the bar for scrutiny has been lowered from strict to intermediate scrutiny across the board:

The United States concedes that some form of strong showing (“intermediate scrutiny,” many opinions say) is essential, and that §922(g)(9) is valid only if substantially related to an important governmental objective.  [p. 8]

So, we won. Or did we?

As David Cohen points out, Chicago theoretically won on both arguments.  The margins can be interpreted more than one way.  In essence, this case was an 8-1 loss for Gura's Privileges or Immunities argument.  Given that Justice Thomas’ vote was for PorI, we can also see this as a 4-5 loss for Due Process incorporation.

I’m going to throw temperance to the wind for a moment and suggest that Clarence Thomas is the only Justice currently sitting with a spine.

We did achieve a very important philosophical victory, but the practical ramifications remain to be seen.

The 7th Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago has been reversed by the Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings.  That means we won.

To some extent, that is.

The ruling [pdf] was a narrow 5-4 decision, and the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

We get incorporation, but Slaughterhouse stands.

Monday is the last day for opinions, and the consensus seems to be that the opinion for McDonald v. Chicago will be written by Justice Alito.

From a 2nd Amendment perspective, this is a good thing.  It may also be glad tidings for the 14th.

Jim March thinks that having Justice Alito author the opinion signals the Court's willingness to revive the Privileges or Immunities clause.  I'd lost hope for that mechanism when I first parsed the oral arguments.  Justice Scalia's naked rancor for the approach seemed to have doomed it in favor of …

H.R. 5175, also known as the DISCLOSE Act, passed the House 219-206 yesterday.  The NRA exemption is still intact, but this will affect a large spectrum of political groups.

It's unlikely it will be heard by the Senate before recess next week, but they will push for passage afterwards.  Chambliss and Isakson have both assured me that they will be voting against it, but anyone outside of Georgia needs to get in touch with their Senators immediately regarding this.

Georgia Representatives who voted for the Act were Hank Johnson, John Lewis and David Scott.  I find it inconceivable that we …

Just yesterday, the Gun Owners of America was castigating the NRA for supposedly "selling out" other gun organizations by carving themselves an exemption from the provisions of HR 5175 (also known as the DISCLOSE Act).  Today, they're taking credit for killing the thing.  Go figure.

The NRA's "carve out" exemption was the poison pill that killed the act.  The 1st Amendment is at best a tangential issue for the NRA, but in this case, they had to get involved to protect the interests of their membership.  Getting directly involved in a 1st Amendment battle takes …

The President has picked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to take Justice Stevens' seat on the Supreme Court.  Kagan is a safe bet for the administration.  She's got excellent credentials, and there don't seem to be any significant controversies in her past.  Confirmation will likely be somewhat uneventful.

In any case, no matter what her politics may be, it's unlikely she'll be able to shift the Court to the left in the way Stevens sometimes was.

The legal community seems to have a great deal of respect for her. While Dean at Harvard Law School, she was able to unite disparate political factions, and even to earn the respect of conservatives. Ilya Somin points out that she's got the intellectual credentials, and more important, she's willing to accept views that differ from her personal politics. On matters of the 1st Amendment, Rick Pildes thinks she would have voted with the majority in Citizens United.

Face it, folks.  We weren't going to get a conservative.  In the balance of things, this was the best possible outcome.

HB 1217 has passed in Virginia.  The bill allows local elementary schools to teach firearms safety to students, using the NRA's Eddie Eagle program as a template.

Predictable but impotent resistance came from the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a Brady Campaign partner.  The VCPC is an affiliate of States United to Prevent Gun Violence, who recently merged with Joyce Foundation beneficiary Freedom States Alliance (*).

A spokesperson for the VCPC lamented that firearms safety training did not belong in the schools, and that it is "up to the parents to teach that at home."  With the latter, I agree.

The problem is, that's not happening.  If parents were doing their jobs, this wouldn't be an issue.

Apparently, some folks are unhappy with the NRA's actions leading up to the passage of SB 308.  In fact, they're so riddled with angst, they're quitting the NRA and urging others to do so.

Why?  The claim is that the NRA withdrew their support for the bill because the language re-legalizing carry in the insecure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport was stripped from the final version.   Allegations have been made that NRA lobbyists pressured Senators to vote against the bill, and that they attempted to "sabotage" it.

As far as I can gather, this comes from three sources:

a poorly-written article with a misspelled title
a claim from an organization that's voiced hostility to the NRA before, and
the utterances of two Senators who were opposed to the bill's passage.

Of course, none of the three people who foamed at the mouth to me about it in person could tell me exactly what was said, who said it, or in what context it was said.

Well, if you're making a claim like that, I'd expect proof, not hearsay.

Some folks may remember last summer's dust-up over this. There was a bill before Congress to get the District of Columbia a seat in the House. John Ensign tacked the Second Amendment Enforcement Act onto it, and it became something of a poison pill. Democrats were unable to excise his amendment, and if the District was to get a house seat, they'd have to comply with the Heller ruling.

Rather than risk abandoning the District's unconstitutional and disastrous regulations, Congress chose to simply drop the whole matter completely.

Well, history repeats itself, though rarely this quickly. …