Fattah on Heller

You all might remember Chaka Fattah.  He’s a Congressman that represents Philadelphia, and is the lead member of the Congressional brief filed in favor of DC’s position.  You know, the one that he got a whopping 18 other fellow congress critters to sign on to.  Well, he hasn’t given up pooping on your second amendment rights.

At issue is Washington D.C.’s law that bans handguns. An appeals court has ruled it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has revisited the Second Amendment since 1939, when it upheld Congress’s right to legislate about guns. Since then the Congress has passed, and Presidents have signed, numerous laws that regulate sales, shipment, use and concealment of all kinds of firearms and ammunition. Cities and states have approved and enforced additional regulations.

I have been joined by other members of Congress in an amicus brief that urges the Supreme Court to uphold the District’s law and reverse the Appeals court. Such a ruling by the high court would be in line with settled precedent, and it would permit the District as well as the Congress and municipalities nationwide to continue reasonable regulation and control of such weapons.

Yes, reasonable regulations such as a compete and outright ban on any firearm that is useful for self-defense.  Why do they still use this language?  Are we the only people who can see just how disingenuous it is?  Fattah has eighteen other Congressmen on his brief.  Fifty five members of the senate and 250 members of the House signed on to a brief in favor of Mr. Heller.  As much as Fattah would like to give the impression that his is a growing and influential movement, it is not.  Here’s to hoping he’s disappointed when the ruling is handed down.

Banks and Privacy

Normally I condemn laws that require banks to spy on customers.  But applied to Elliot Spitzer, I consider them poetic justice.  No doubt as a prosecutor, he relied on many of these laws to send people up river.  Paybacks are hell.

First Amendment Issue in Pennsylvania

Thanks to Rustmeister, who found it, it would appear that a Pennsylvania school is stifling student free speech:

Donald Miller III, 14, went to Penn Manor High School in December wearing a T-shirt he said was intended to honor his uncle, a U.S. Army soldier fighting in Iraq.

The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says “Volunteer Homeland Security.” On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words “Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Gun Owner — No Bag Limit.”

If I recall my first amendment law correct, which I might not, it’s lawful for schools to regulate dress code, but it has to do it in a content neutral manner.  In other words, it could proscribe all shirts that are not plain shirts of uniform color, it could proscribe an obscene t-shirt that could be construed as disruptive to the educational environment, but it can’t discriminate on dress based merely on disapproval of the content displayed on the shirt.

Rally in Harrisburg: Be There or Be Square

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmens Clubs, Allegheny County Sportsmens League, and Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, along with several other groups, will be rallying in Harrisburg on Monday April 7th, 2008.

I have made arrangements to be able to attend this rally, and I hope you will all join me in going.  We are under constant assault by anti-gun forces here in Pennsylvania, and we need to push our own legislative agenda.  We can’t let the anti-gunners gain an inch of ground.  We must let the folks in Harrisburg know that we’re here, and we’re active.  Our continued gun rights in Pennsylvania depend on it.

Excellent Post on Originalism

Randy Barnett has a post up which is lengthy, but well worth the read, on new originalism vs. the living constitution.  It does contain a little bit about the second amendment, since I know most of us are interested in that here.  It amazes me how good of a litmus test your views on that particular topic are in terms of how you view not only constitutional interpretation, but on the proper relationship between a people and its government.

Feds Chilling Free Speech Online?

Looks like it to me.  I might not always agree with David’s approach to activism, but to suggest that he’s implicitly threatened anyone, or that his blogging activities might bring the wrath of federal law enforcement on him is offensive to not only the first amendment, but the very principles this country was founded on.

More on OWAA

Bitter has more on OWAA.  Seems they canceled their planned event with anti-hunting and anti-gun forces.  Hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts need to understand who pays for most of the wildlife management and upkeep of public lands, and it’s not them.  Both hunters and shooters pay for wildlife management through the federal “Pittman Robertson” excise taxes on guns and ammunition.  Next time you hear a hiker bitch about sunday hunting, remind them who pays for the trails they like to hike on.