Year: 2008

Contrast

Here’s an amicus brief filed on behalf of The District of Colombia from former Clinton Administration officials.

The question presented in this case is whether the Second Amendment prevents the District of Columbia from enacting public safety measures such as the handgun law at issue here that are designed to combat the violence that firearms enable a criminal to perpetrate against the District’s citizens.  Amici submit that the answer is no.  Properly understood, the Second Amendment does not prohibit a legislature from enacting a law that has neither the purpose nor the effect of interfering with a State’s operation of its militia in accordance with state and federal law.  That was the position the United States Department of Justice maintained  throughout the Twentieth Century in successfully defending federal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenge and in evaluating the constitutionality of proposed firearms legislation.

This isn’t to say I’m happy with the Bush Administration.  Bush has not been the friend to gun owners he should have been to deserve an endorsement from the NRA, but it’s worthwhile to consider what kind of brief we’d be looking at had Gore won in 2000, or Kerry won in 2004.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More Media Misunderstanding of McDonald
  2. Shirley Katz Update
  3. Congress Has a Duty to Intervene

Rally Around McCain for Michigan

Bitter is arguing we should rally around John McCain in Michigan, where Fred isn’t polling well, in hopes of knocking Mitt the Shit out of the race.

If Mitt doesn’t win Michigan, even though he has more delegates than anyone else right now, he’s lost the momentum he needs to go into Super Tuesday as a truly viable candidate. Don’t get me wrong, he’d still spend his money like crazy, but politically, the GOP mainstreamers are going to be more open to shopping for a new candidate – and that could be Fred since McCain seems to have a few more enemies.

Read the whole thing. I agree with Bitter’s analysis. Michigan is Mitt’s other home state. Mitt should have won New Hampshire, hands down, but he didn’t. He should, if his candidacy is remotely viable, be able to win his real home state of Michigan, a state that elected his father Governor. I think if Mitt can’t win Michigan, it casts some very serious doubt on his viability as a candidate, and the GOP machine just might get behind another candidate. We can only hope.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Mitt Takes Michigan
  2. Wedge Issue
  3. So Gingrich is the New Anti-Mitt

Gunfight in Mexico

From StrategyPage:

When the fighting ended, ten police officers and soldiers had been wounded, but three of the drug gang were dead and ten more, some of them wounded, were in custody.  A considerable arsenal was confiscated, including 7 automatic weapons, 16 “sniper rifles,” a dozen automatic pistols, and a grenade launcher, plus grenades and ammunition, as well as flack jackets and some radios.  Much of the equipment appeared to have come from the U.S. 

They were identified as operatives of the Heriberto Lazcano drug gang, commonly known as the “Gulf Cartel.”  Among the prisoners were three Mexican-Americans, apparently all U.S. citizens, one from Texas and two from Michigan, apparently professional criminals hired to provided additional muscle.

Most of that firepower would be illegal in the United States as well, so I’m having a hard time believing we’re the source of it.  Grenades, grenade launchers, automatic weapons, are all too heavily restricted to have been sourced here.

 

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Officer.com Looks at Mexican Gun Canard
  2. Mexico Once Again
  3. In Depth Look at Trafficking in Mexico

Is the Administration Brief Really That Bad?

This guy says it’s not.  I’m in agreement with SayUncle’s analysis.  I agree with Right Side of the Rainbow on this point:

For what it’s worth, I think we should pay close attention to the legal framework outlined in the administration’s brief. I’d wager that the Supreme Court adopts it, or something close to it.

The last sentence there is why I had such a negative reaction to the brief.  In my mind it opened the door to the court to rule in favor of an individual right, but based on an interpretation that intended to uphold every federal gun law, and will make attacking state laws, like Massachusetts byzantine licensing system, and New Jersey’s “maybe we’ll issue you one this year, if we feel like it.” permitting system for purchasing handguns.

My outrage in this is mellowing a bit, because perhaps I am expecting too much from The Court in Heller.  If, in order to get a majority to rule in favor of an individual right, they need a track of reasoning that the liberals feel comfortable with, perhaps this is a way they could go without handing us an outright defeat.

If The Court did adopt the government’s position would I consider it a victory or a defeat?   I think I’d have to still consider it a victory, because it will at least force the lower courts to start asking the proper questions, even if the ultimate result is not being able to use Heller to get rid of as many gun control laws as we would like.  My big disappointment is that the government’s brief is that it merely calls for “heightened scrutiny”, which implies the government is after something less than strict scrutiny.  What level of heightened would make the government happy?  No doubt whatever level is necessary to uphold the vast majority of federal prohibitions.  That should not be the concern when it comes to constitutional matters.  The Second Amendment deserves the same standard of scrutiny as every other part of the Bill of Rights.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Roberts Not Liking Standards of Review
  2. Obama Administration Takes a Position on Second Amendment
  3. So Far

Standing Up in Canada

Thanks to Geek With a .45 for this link. Follow it, watch all the videos. It is some truly excellent stuff. This man is facing The Inqusition a Canadian government inquiry demanding answers as to why he published cartoons that were deemed offensive to Islam. Here is the first video, just for your perusal. Watch all of them:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g[/youtube]

We must never let this happen in our country. Never! Bravo to Mr. Levant for standing up for his rights.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Look Who’s Teaching
  2. Video Finale
  3. Friday Funny

Quote of the Day

From Ian Argent, in the comments, speaking about The Administration’s filing on DC’s side in DC v. Heller:

They slapped gun owners in the face with a fish. Sushi-grade fish, with some tasty sauce, but still, a slap in the face with a fish…

Best metaphor of this whole sorry affair that I think we’re going to see.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Robb Has it Right
  2. HSUS Offering Degrees in Animal Rights
  3. Quote of the Day: Sea Kitten Edition

NRA Statement on Solicitor General’s Brief

Can be found here:

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the whole thing. While the Solicitor General’s brief does agree with an individual rights point of view, and while it also does not call for DC’s handgun ban to be upheld, what it is intended to do is preserve the existing federal firearms laws, by applying a level of scrutiny that would uphold them. What angers me is that The Administration is dragging other issues into this case which are not currently at question. This case is not about the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act of 1968. It has nothing at all to do with federal regulations on machine guns. The issue here should not be what standard of scrutiny upholds the current federal gun laws. The Second Amendment ought to receive the highest level of scrutiny as we would apply to any other part of the Bill or Rights. By calling for less than that, I still stand by my assertion that Bush has slapped us in the face, and I wish NRA would have issued a stronger statement on this one.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Roberts Not Liking Standards of Review
  2. This is More Like It
  3. Is the Administration Brief Really That Bad?

An Endorsement

If you will notice on the right side of this blog, I have added a sidebar item in support of Fred Thompson’s candidacy for President. I decided that it was time to put my money where my mouth is, so I have made a donation to the Fred’s campaign as well.

I will keep the banner there as long as Fred remains a candidate. I’ll admit, I was disappointed by Fred’s showing in New Hampshire, but I sincerely hope that Fred can pull out a win in South Carolina, and do well in the South. I’m tired of supporting compromise candidates, so here’s hoping Fred gets it together and sweeps the South and Super Tuesday.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. It’s McCain in South Carolina
  2. Good News
  3. Fred for VP!