2nd Amendment

84 posts

Always with the Democrats

We’ve got eleven Democrats retiring from Congress this year: four from the Senate and seven from the House. While gun owners will hardly miss Carolyn McCarthy or Henry Waxman, we’re also losing a few allies. For all the facile claims that the Republicans support the 2nd Amendment and the Democrats don’t, this may be of interest.

Tom Harkin of Iowa and Carl Levin of Michigan both co-sponsored the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act and have F ratings from the NRA, as does Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. On the other hand, consider Max Baucus, who holds a B rating. Despite some weirdness about “smart guns,” he voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment. You may recall that Manchin and Toomey are both Republicans, not Democrats.

In the house, we bid adieu to McCarthy and Waxman, who were of course rated F by the NRA. Also leaving are Jim Moran of Virginia and George Miller of California, both of whom sponsored the magazine ban (I am not writing that out twice!) 

Continued...

United States v. Chovan

The 9th Circuit has ruled that §922(g)(9), also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, they found that it continues to bar firearms ownership, even after all other civil rights have been restored.

The upshot is this:

  • Despite restoration of other civil rights, the lifetime ban on firearms ownership is constitutional
  • Intermediate scrutiny applies to 2nd Amendment challenges
  • The “core” right acknowledged by Heller applies to “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
  • Mr. Clovan’s misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence forever exempts him from that category.

Daniel Chovan was convicted of corporal injury on a spouse in 1996. In 2009, he attempted to buy a gun and was denied. Upon further investigation, the FBI found videos Mr. Chovan posted on YouTube in which he carried firearms while participating in improvised border patrols and fired guns across the border into Mexico.

Continued...

Moore v. Madigan

This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home. Illinois is the last state to have such a ban, and the 7th Circuit has found it unconstitutional.

Judge Posner’s opinion is here [pdf]. There are three relevant points:

  1. To deny the right to keep and bear arms outside the confines of the home is to divorce it from its purpose of self-defense, and that’s inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller and McDonald.
  2. Rational basis doesn’t fly when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Illinois needed to make a “strong showing” to justify a ban on carry, and they failed to do so.
  3. Claims that public safety may be adversely affected (the “blood in the streets” argument) are unclear, inconclusive, and have little bearing.

This is a big win, and not just for Illinois. Congratulations are due to the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA).

Continued...

Yep, He Went There

In tonight’s debate, the President was asked point-blank if he’d support a ban on “assault weapons.” His answer was an unequivocable yes. It’s a bit ironic, since he acknowledged that most of the violence in his hometown was carried out with “cheap handguns” rather than AK-47’s.

This places him on shaky rhetorical ground when he claims to support the 2nd Amendment, but the shocking thing is that Governor Romney implied that he’d support it if it “provided opportunities for both [sides] that both wanted.” Just like they did in 1993.

Flaunting that NRA endorsement a bit, aren’t we Mitt?

I’m not worried about such a thing happening, as the votes aren’t there in Congress. Even if the idea had support, everybody remembers the political fallout from 1994. What gets me is that both men were either so overconfident or so utterly…I don’t know, what’s the opposite of smart?

ETA: It’s interesting that Romney brought up the Fast & Furious debacle, which both Crowley and the President conveniently sidestepped discussing.

Continued...

How Not to Win, Part II

After being detained for strolling around a suburban park with a Draco pistol, Leonard Embody tried suing the officers who detained him. If you’re not familiar with his story, I’ve got background here. In short, and as usual, he lost.

He then appealed to the 6th Circuit, who were none too sympathetic [pdf].

For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.

Just savor the irony, folks.

In short, the Court found that Embody got exactly what he was seeking, just not the outcome for which he’d hoped.

Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.

Continued...

Sharp Edges and Frayed Nerves

CZ P-01 w/Bayonet

The Supreme Court has refused [pdf] to hear United States v. Masciandaro. That leaves Woollard v. Sheridan, which still has decent odds of making it to the calendar.

There’s been some scuttlebutt that the Court would rather hear a “pure” case in which the petitioner isn’t someone appealing a criminal conviction. Both the Heller and McDonald cases fit this bill, as they were brought by law-abiding citizens appealing unjust laws. In such cases, the Court can address a constitutional issue directly, without having other logistical issues getting in the way. Woollard is a compelling case that gives them that opportunity.

In happier news, that’s the CZ P-01 with a Ka-Bar pistol bayonet at the top. Sure, CZ made one a few years back, but this one is lighter, and it has a really good blade. I don’t know why the world needs more of these, but hey: it looks cool.

Continued...

Friday Quickies

Joe McCarthy?  No, worse!

You too can be Irony King (or other monarch) of the week by going here and giving your address.  They send you one of these bumper stickers free.  The site says it’ll take 4-6 weeks to ship, but that’s still plenty of time before the primaries.

In other news, there’s a promising verdict from the North Carolina Superior Court (opinion linked at Volokh) upholding a felon’s right to keep and bear arms.

Before you flinch at that, bear in mind that one can be punished as a felon for crimes that do little or no real harm to anyone.  Rehabilitation or decades of clean living don’t matter:  a felony conviction of any sort is a lifetime ban from owning firearms.  However, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty (as the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald), can felons be denied its exercise forever?  After all, they still have rights to freedom of speech and legal counsel, right?

When All Else Fails, Lie

CSGV Alarmism

H.R. 822 now has 245 cosponsors.  I have my reasons for thinking it’s the wrong approach, and even if it does get through the Senate, it won’t be signed.  That’s alright.  I like this one for one very salient reason: it’s got folks in certain corners going all kinds of asplodey.

Today’s exhibit is from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV).  They were originally formed in 1975 as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.  One of the founders was Edward Welles, who also started the Violence Policy Center.  At some point, they decided that the phrase “ban handguns” might be a little extreme, and they changed it.  If that story sounds familiar, the Violence Policy Center used to be Handgun Control International.  Evidently, “control” is also a scary word to the moderates these guys hope to attract.

Under the even less threatening name of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, the CSGV collects $125,000 from the Joyce Foundation every year, which is about $120,000 more than the Brady Campaign makes.

Continued...

Newsflash: California Possibly Not Sinking

Things might not be what they seem. I have very little to substantiate this at the moment, but some folks with their ears closer to the ground than mine are wondering what Governor Brown might be playing at with the gun-control bills he signed into law this week.

We’ve got an interesting snippet from a statement he made today:

The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin–coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

This got me thinking.

Mulford Act: Full Circle

Today, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 144 into law, making open carry of any sort a misdemeanor.

Since 1967, there’s been a loophole in § 12031 that allows an unlicensed citizen to carry a handgun, as long as it’s visible and unloaded. It’s a questionable mode of carry, but at least it’s an option when others are not available. Now, Californians don’t even have that. Who’s to blame? Portantino? Brown? Nope. We are.

For over 40 years, the whole technicality was something of an open secret, but it was never front-page news. That is, until a bunch of pro-gun folks decided it was their mission to make it an issue. They wanted controversy, and they succeeded. Now, California citizens are worse off, and the Brady Campaign can chalk up a win.

Losing is still losing, no matter how righteous some thought they might have been. This didn’t have to happen.

Continued...

Dave’s Not Here, Man

Law-Abiding Bender

The ATF recently distributed a letter to firearms dealers to remind them that they cannot sell guns to users of marijuana. People are suddenly up in arms about the situation, which I find odd, since this isn’t anything new.

Good old Kentucky Blue has been Schedule I since 1970, and the accompanying prohibitions date back to 1968. Having or consuming the stuff is illegal, and those who do so are prohibited under U.S.C. § 922(g) from receiving or possessing a firearm. Thanks to an unpleasant trend in jurisprudence, federal law overrides any state laws that might make it legal, even by prescription.

The current situation presents real a hardship to those who need the Maui Ouchie for legitimate medicinal purposes, and the punishments for those who use it recreationally are excessive and unjust. It might be nice to see things change, but the majority of pot smokers aren’t the most…shall we say, motivated bunch.

Continued...

A Right Deferred

The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear Williams v. Maryland this term.  Are we screwed, then?

The implications aren’t encouraging. The first is that we couldn’t get four Justices to take an interest.  The second is that there might have been four, but they didn’t think they could convince a fifth to their side.  A loss at the Supreme Court level would essentially end the reach of the 2nd Amendment at the doorstep of one’s home.

While Williams was our best overall case, we’ve still got Masciandaro and Woollard awaiting review.  However, their chances aren’t looking too bright at the moment, either.

That leaves constitutional protection of the right to carry in a precarious position, with three 4th Circuit decisions implying that there isn’t such a right.  I worry that those might be taken as precedents in future litigation.

Sooner or Later

We know now that the ATF sat by and let straw purchases of weapons happen in Phoenix.  We know they reassured dealers that the weapons would be tracked.  We know that didn’t happen, and that those weapons have been used in dozens of homicides.

As of today, we also know that the ATF themselves purchased weapons and sold them to criminals.  Apparently, John Dodson was given authorization and ordered by Supervisor Voth to pick up a few Draco pistols and deliver them to suspects.

I’m not sure why Dodson didn’t bring this up during his testimony to Congress back in June.  Any risk of self-incrimination can easily be countered by the Nuremberg Defense, especially considering that his vehement resistance to the idea is well documented.

This whole thing is far worse than Watergate, and yet only two mainstream news organizations are actively following it.  I don’t know what it’s going to take to bring this to the front page, but Congressional hearings are largely toothless when the department charged with prosecuting the issue is complicit in the problem at hand.

On Hypocrisy

John Crewdson has an article on Bloomberg in which he laments the progress of H.R. 822.  One implication of the bill is that a New York resident could bypass his own state’s requirements by simply getting a non-resident concealed weapon license from Florida, which New York would have to honor.

Apparently, this represents such an existential crisis for Mr. Crewdson that he applied for a Florida license. He details the process in the article, along with the fact that he lied on the application:

I’ve never touched a handgun and I haven’t been to Florida in decades, yet this month Florida officials mailed me a permit to carry a concealed gun.  (…)  Florida, which granted my permit after I viewed a half- hour, online safety video, now says it made a mistake.

Florida Statute 790.06 clearly stipulates that the applicant must have taken one of the training courses listed within, but Mr.

Continued...

How and How Not to Win

In the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, but under current jurisprudence, that right ends at the front door of the home. Though both decisions contain dicta implying that the right to carry arms outside the home is protected, the lower courts disagree, citing a lack of specific direction from the Big Nine.

There are several cases currently awaiting the Court’s review on the matter.  Woollard v. Sheridan challenges the unrealistic and corrupt permitting system used by the state of Maryland to deny the right of self-protection to ordinary folks, even those who have proven that they are in imminent danger. The plaintiff in Williams v. Maryland never even tried to get a permit, knowing that denial was a foregone conclusion. He was convicted of illegally carrying, and his conviction was upheld in a very arrogant 4th Circuit ruling.

Continued...

Crossed Wires on Gun Control

I came home to two different emails tonight. The news is good, and unintentionally amusing. Both messages regard Monday’s Department of Justice announcement that gun dealers in the southwest would be required to report multiple sales of rifles to the ATF. The first is from the NRA-ILA:

House Committee Passes Amendment to Defund Illegal Obama Firearm Sales Reporting Requirement

Today, during consideration of the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, pro-gun U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a new and unauthorized multiple sales reporting plan proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Amendment was passed by a vote of 25-16.

The Rehberg Amendment, which was strongly supported by NRA, will defund the Justice Department’s controversial and illegal move requiring federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.

That’s good news, and my hat’s off to Denny Rehberg.

Continued...

Ezell v. Chicago: Full of Win

Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to fire them?  According to today’s 7th Circuit opinion [pdf], it does.

In order to keep a functional firearm in the home, Chicago residents must acquire a permit.  Part of getting the permit involves proving proficiency through a live-fire course at a range.  However, the city has an ordinance that prohibits anyone from opening a range in which the average person can do so.  Read that again.  Yep.

The 2nd Amendment Foundation sought an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance last year, but Judge Kendall upheld its constitutionality in District Court.  The case moved to the 7th Circuit in April, and they were not pleased with the city.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits.

Continued...

Salt in the Wound

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled [pdf] that the NRA is eligible for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees from Chicago and Oak Park.  That makes my day.

You may recall that the NRA had a case running in parallel to McDonald v. Chicago, and though they lost, they were later vindicated by Alan Gura’s victory in the Supreme Court.  The ever-quotable Frank Easterbrook writes:

This litigation was over except for the entry of an injunction by the district court. Chicago and Oak Park capitulated, which made the exercise unnecessary. By the time defendants bowed to the inevitable, plaintiffs had in hand a judgment of the Supreme Court that gave them everything they needed. If a favorable decision of the Supreme Court does not count as “the necessary judicial imprimatur” on the plaintiffs’ position (Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605), what would?

Now, if Alan Gura could start getting his fees back, we’d be somewhat square.

Williams v. Maryland

The Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns.  McDonald v. Chicago incorporated that right against the states.  Both of those cases were about ownership of guns in the home.  The issue of carry outside the home (the “bearing” part of “keep and bear”) was touched upon only lightly and vaguely.

This case may change that.

Charles Williams legally purchased a gun in Maryland.  He jumped through all the hoops.  He did everything right.  After picking it up from the shop, he dropped it off at his girlfriend’s house.  Later, he retrieved the gun and headed home.  He was arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for unlawful transportation of a firearm without a permit.

Williams admits that he didn’t even apply for a permit.  Why?  Because the state of Maryland has made it clear that they don’t issue them. 

Continued...

Ezell v. Chicago Orals

In a way, this case is a rematch.  In one corner, we have Alan Gura, who represented us admirably in McDonald v. Chicago.  In the other corner, we have Chicago counsel James Feldman, who utterly crashed and burned in his attempts to argue the city’s claims in that case.  Apparently, Feldman isn’t willing to settle for one failure in front of the nation’s highest court, so he’s repeating it here.

The case at hand is Ezell v. Chicago, a challenge to Chicago’s ban on the construction of indoor shooting ranges within the city limits.  The ban presents something of a Catch-22, due to the Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance (also known as the “We’re Cooperating As Little As Humanly Possible With The Damn Court” ordinance).  The Ordinance requires that registration of a handgun include

an affidavit signed by a firearm instructor certified by the State of Illinois to provide firearm training courses attesting that the applicant has completed a firearm safety and training course, which, at a minimum, provides one hour of range training

That’s a hard thing to do when there are no firing ranges around. 

Continued...

H.R. 822

John Richardson has the scoop on this one.  Introduced by Cliff Stearns of Florida and co-sponsored by Heath Shuler of North Carolina, the bill seeks to enforce national reciprocity for carry permits.

Two years ago, Senators Thune and Coburn attempted to pass a similar bill by amending it to the Defense Department budget.  It failed by only two votes then, and the landscape is much more amenable to it now.

That is, if the Tea Party still believes all that stuff they did last November.

Then There Was One

I subscribe to a few anti-gun mailing lists. As such, I get weird emails from time to time. Some are ludicrous, some are informative, and lately, most of them carry a certain air of desperation.

Today’s example: a request from the Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort urging me to sign a petition against reform of Wisconsin’s carry laws. According to the petition,

Research shows that allowing more people to carry guns in more places will lead to one thing — more tragedies.

That’s odd, because most statistics I’ve seen prove quite the opposite. Perhaps if they’d provided a citation, I could research their allegation further. Alas, none seems forthcoming.

Not that it would help much. Carry reform in Wisconsin, though long overdue, is all but inevitable.  Once passed, Illinois will be the last state in the union that completely bans concealed carry.

Andrew Traver and the New Math

The ATF hasn’t had a director for almost four years.  Former director Carl Truscott’s reign was marked by numerous complaints about misappropriation of funds and poor treatment of employees.  Following his resignation in 2006, the parameters were changed, and Senate confirmation is now required for a nominee.

In the meantime, former prosecutor Michael Sullivan served as Acting Director, but was blocked from nomination for the permanent position.  Sullivan resigned January 20th, 2009, the day President Obama was sworn in.  Presumably, the idea was that the new President could find someone capable of passing confirmation hearings.

Andrew Traver isn’t that person.

All Quiet on the 2nd Amendment Front

The Brady Campaign sent me an email this morning to let me know who they’re endorsing for tomorrow’s mid-term elections.  I have to say, the list is pretty thin.  This could be due to the fact that they only have $5,661 in cash to spend this cycle.

Mayors Against Illegal guns gave $150,000 to the Raben Group to spend on something, though I don’t know what.  Founder Robert Raben also sits on the board of directors of the Alliance for Justice, a group that represents several progressive political causes, but doesn’t seem involved in gun control.

Josh Sugarmann’s Violence Policy Center currently shows a balance of zero.  That’s a bit odd, since the Joyce Foundation has pumped roughly $2.1 million into various other groups under the ostensible heading of “Gun Violence.”  Still, that money appears to be targeted towards university and community research programs, rather than towards political endorsements.

Across the Atlantic

Last Friday, I had a very interesting conversation with a war correspondent from the UK Daily Mirror. He’s been embedded with the SAS in Afghanistan. He’s seen his share of guns, and he’s done some shooting.

Personally, he’s not fond of them, but nor is he hostile. In fact, he mentioned that gun crime is on the rise in London, and he wondered aloud if England’s strict gun laws might be the cause rather than the solution.

This was going to be a very interesting conversation, indeed.

Talking to the Media

Would you look at that handsome devil?  How can this guy possibly be single?

A few months back, I spoke with a reporter from the Financial Times of England.  The interview went well, but as always, I was a bit misquoted.  Though the errors were not significant, and they did not distort my intent, they can be illustrative.

Ms. Fifield was a joy to speak with.  She has her reservations on widespread gun ownership, but she was open and honest about them, and much to my delight, she was a great listener.  She’s also one of the few people I’ve met who can still take notes in shorthand.  We spoke at great length about the history, context, and implications of the 2nd Amendment.

As you can see from the article, she had a great deal of ground to cover, and the fact that she took trouble to get all the technical terminology correct shows marvelous attention to detail. 

Continued...

U.S. v. Williams

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.

Continued...

Woollard v. Sheridan et Alii

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).”

Continued...

U.S. v Skoien Decided

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]

McDonald v. Chicago: Contours and Concerns

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.

McDonald v. Chicago, 5-4

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.

Wait…what?

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 them a bit off the reservation, but tainting the bill with an exemption that was bound to offend its sponsors was a good strategy.

It may be cynical, but it works.  Two years in a row, sponsors of the DC Voting Rights Act have chosen to abandon efforts at passage rather than accept reforms to the District’s onerous gun laws.

Continued...

NRA Bashing

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.

Continued...

D.C Voting Rights Act Dead

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. This year’s version quickly found the Ensign amendment attached to it, and again Congress chose not to decide.

Paul Helmke’s response was to gloat, calling the whole thing a “Faustian bargain” and voicing his pleasure that the District would be sticking to its guns, even if it cost them something advocates of DC statehood consider to be a huge priority.

Continued...

McDonald v Chicago: Oral Arguments

Long story short, with the exception of Breyer, there appears to be no significant opposition to incorporation through Due Process.  With the exception of Ginsburg, the Court showed no interest in revisiting the Privileges or Immunities clause.

So, it’s a win, but only for the 2nd Amendment. Although Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank stand for the time being, incorporation here will whittle away at them, as it did in Gitlow and Benton.

The transcript [pdf] is up here. Josh Blackman was there, and has his commentary here.

I was saddened to see how quickly Scalia and Roberts dismissed the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse. I’d worried that Scalia would be opposed to revisiting Privileges or Immunities, and I was sadly proven right.

Regarding selective incorporation, a doctrine he’s been wary of in the past, Scalia said, “As much as I think it’s wrong, even I have acquiesced in it.”

Breyer’s “imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart” is truly a surreal idea.

Continued...

McDonald v. Chicago: the 11th Hour

Oral arguments are tomorrow morning at 10:00 EST.  Check for transcripts after lunch.

Though they did so in Heller, the Court has chosen not to allow a recording of the proceedings.  I’d have hoped that, with Souter gone, the Court would consider broadcasting, but that appears not to be the case.

Though the Justices’ minds are likely made up at this point, the tenor and nature of their questions may give us an idea where they lean.  It should be fun to see Chicago counsel dissemble while trying to pretend Heller didn’t mean what it said.

They’re obviously nervous.  Mayor Daley has stooped to trotting out Blair Holt’s parents to cry on cue for the cameras, and we have this missive from Dennis A. Henigan, in which he cites the same tired, discredited statistics he’s been using for years.  It’s a sad last wave before drowning, but the text and history of the 14th Amendment are squarely on our side.

U.S. v. Skoien To Be Reheard

News comes from Eugene Volokh that the 7th Circuit wants the Skoien case reheard en banc.  There are two possibilities here.

The first is that there was widespread disagreement with Judge Sykes’ decision, and that the others on the panel hope to reverse it should we lose the McDonald case.  This would be similar to the Nordyke situation, in which the initial decision was similarly remanded pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

The second possibility is that they want to try for a more lenient standard of scrutiny, which seems unlikely.  Heller took rational basis off the table, and Sykes’ opinion was as close to “intermediate” scrutiny as could be workable.  All that remains is strict scrutiny for the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s actually support for that.  We’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, the 4th Circuit has quietly agreed with the 7th, vacating William Chester’s conviction on similar grounds in an unpublished opinion. 

Continued...

Schadenfreude

Well, it looks like I agree with Sarah Brady on one thing, at least.

The Brady Campaign gave President Obama an “F” rating on gun-control issues in a report issued this week [pdf].

In just one year, Barack Obama has signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office. From the repeal of Reagan Era rules keeping loaded guns out of national parks to the repeal of post-9/11 policies to safeguard Amtrak from armed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s stance on guns has endangered our communities and threatened our national security.

That first sentence is particularly telling.  Obama knows the new truth when it comes to gun control:  paying lip service to it is a great rhetorical ploy, but attempting to follow through is political suicide.  Now he’s in a rather unenviable position: he was expected to support gun control, but he lacks the wherewithal to do so. 

Continued...

When in Doubt, Blame the 2nd Amendment

Two other amicus briefs on behalf of the respondents in McDonald v. Chicago warrant mention.  The first [pdf] is filed on behalf of the Villages of Winnetka & Skokie, Illinois.  The other is written by Carolyn McCarthy.

You may remember Skokie from its brief cameo in the Blues Brothers.  In their brief, they maintain that incorporation of the 2nd Amendment would violate Home Rule powers.  They also worry that constituents will grow weary of seeing their government spend tax dollars defending unconstitutional regulations.

Another aspect of amici’s experiences should concern the Court. When Evanston and Winnetka repealed their more restrictive laws in 2008, it was not because their citizens or legislators had been persuaded by policy arguments like the ones advanced by petitioners, respondent NRA, and their amici–but rather because they determined that the costs of defending the laws in federal court were too high to have local taxpayers bear.

Continued...

McDonald v. Chicago: Amicus Briefs for Respondents

Final amicus curiae briefs in support of the respondents in McDonald v. Chicago were due today.  Among the parties filing are the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a Joyce Foundation beneficiary, and a coalition of “public health” organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Both briefs take the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated, as it would endanger gun control as a public health policy.

Equally ludicrous, but less insolent than the Chicago brief, is the one filed [pdf] by the United States Conference of Mayors.  These folks were an endorser of the controversial and impotent group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and they claim that “the Second Amendment protects a largely obsolete Eighteenth-Century right.”  They point to New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” program of detaining people suspected of carrying concealed weapons as one practice that may be endangered by incorporation.

Accordingly, if applicable to state and local governments and confined to framing-era understandings, the eighteenth-century conception of the right to bear arms would imperil the use of stop-and-frisk tactics against drug dealers and gang members, at least as long as they carry firearms openly and have not been previously convicted of a felony or otherwise fall within the scope of the regulatory authority acknowledged in Heller.

Continued...