Another Second Amendment Victory

This time in North Carolina court:

The trial court concluded that, when Heller said that bans on felon possession of guns were “presumptively valid,” this presumption could be rebutted, and in this case it was rebutted, given the age of Johnston’s conviction and his apparently blameless life since then. The court also suggested that its analysis might also apply to people whose last convictions were as recent as seven years ago, especially when the convictions were for nonviolent crimes; but it didn’t have occasion to issue any specific holding on that point.

I agree that not all felony convictions should be disabling, especially when you have lawmakers that want to do things like mislabeling syrup to be a felony. It’s also interesting that the Court noted:

There are additional and substitute procedural safeguards which could go far towards preventing the erroneous civil deprivation, or continued civil deprivation, of a citizen’s rights under the Second Amendment. For example, a felon’s potential subjection to the civil disability could easily be dealt with in felony sentencing by findings of fact and rulings on the civil deprivation of the right after giving the felon an opportunity to be heard on the issue. An expansion of the persons allowed to ask for review, and a provision allowing such review at a meaningful time on the issue of whether the person poses a continuing threat to public safety, can satisfy a procedural due process requirement for a meaningful post-disqualification review. The fiscal and administrative burdens that these procedures would entail would not be great if the issue of future dangerousness and consequent civil deprivation of a fundamental liberty were dealt with in the sentencing phase of a trial or plea. The burden of an expanded procedure for review of a felon’s continued dangerousness may only be excessive if all felons continue to be deprived of firearms rights by conviction alone. If, however, that deprivation is limited to those who are found to pose a continuing danger in the sentencing phase after having been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue, then the additional burden of allowing periodic review of the continuing validity of that determination should not be unduly burdensome for a government that seeks to preserve the fundamental rights of its citizens.

I’m glad to see this, because I have always believed a blanket ban on felons is an improper means of handling the issue, and that a prohibition on firearms possession should be something placed on a person convicted during sentencing. Of course, legislatures would be free to require this punishment for certain crimes, but not necessarily all crimes. It’s hard to see how public safety is served by a blanket ban that also covers non-violent felonies.

Second Amendment Victory in Court

This is more a 14th Amendment case, but the State Appeals Court tossed a conviction for having an unlicensed gun, arguing that it violated equal protection, and his right to bear arms. Eugene Volokh notes:

This independent focus on the Second Amendment is important because the Supreme Court has read the Equal Protection Clause as barring most (but not all) state discrimination against noncitizens; the federal government remains generally free to discriminate against noncitizens. But if the Washington Court of Appeals is right that legal aliens are protected by the Second Amendment, that means that even the federal government may not ban them from owning guns.

This would basically mean that anyone who’s in the country legally has a right to bear arms. Current federal law severely curtails the right for non-resident aliens, so this could be interesting if it makes its way to federal court.

Congressman Dan Lungren Never Heard of the 14th Amendment

The Sacramento Bee is angry at some members of the California Congressional delegation for wrong-think, in embracing HR 822. They want to get them back into right-think:

 Central Valley representatives who have made the wrong-headed decision to embrace the measure include Democrat Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Republicans Wally Herger of the Chico area, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove, Jeff Denham of Atwater, Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and Devin Nunes, who represents Tulare and Fresno counties.

They hold up Rep. Dan Lungren, who was the only Republican committee member to vote against the measure, as the poster boy of right-thinking, and proof that Republicans can stand up to the wrong-think of the NRA.

“I believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe in the 10th Amendment,” Lungren, a former California attorney general, said after casting his no vote.

In Lungren’s view, California’s law governing concealed weapons may be too restrictive. But he also said: “That is part of the reality of dealing with what some people call federation and others call states’ rights.” States have rights.

No, Congressmen, states do not have rights. People have rights. States have powers which are delegated to it by the people, who in turn delegate certain enumerated powers to the federal government (at least in theory). One of those enumerated powers is the power to pass laws to protect the civil rights of Americans. Americans, through our constitutional system, have not delegated our right to bear arms to Government, but unique among nations, we have retained it for ourselves. California has no more power to restrict this right than Colorado, Alaska, or New York, and enforcement of this right against the states is very much part of our federal system.

I also believe in the 2nd and 10th Amendments, Congressman, and passionately so. But I also believe in the 14th Amendment with equal passion.

Daily Caller Calls it for Holder

Looks like they think his days are numbered, as the number of members of Congress calling for his resignation is growing quickly:

Attorney General Eric Holder’s tenure in the Obama administration may be coming to an end. At least eight members of Congress have now called on Holder to resign over the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

I would tend to doubt the Attorney General will go gently. The media, for the most part, hasn’t been paying much attention to the scandal. Pretty much Fox News and CBS News are the only two outfits that have covered it any depth. Holder’s resignation would be something the rest of the media would have to report, and they’d also have to report why. His resignation would be an admission of guilt as well, which makes it harder for the Administration to claim this is nothing but a partisan witch hunt.

On the other side of the coin, if Holder was the only cabinet official at fault here, his resignation could dispose of the issue for the Administration, whereas Holder continuing could drag the scandal into election season; probably something that team Obama is not going to be too keen on. So I could see it go either way, but if I had to bet, I don’t think Holder will go gently.

Ladd Everitt & Adam Winkler on “Here Women Talk”

Listen here. After listening to that, I am quite happy to be on the opposite side from Ladd. He pretty much spends the entire time mischaracterizing or making hyperbolic arguments that are ridiculous. He is the king of erecting straw men, and tearing them down. I think the best thing I heard out of Ladd was this:

But I think part of the gun control movement’s challenge right now is to become a little more sophisticated in messaging, and to have the type of strong messaging that the NRA has. One thing you can credit the NRA with is that when Wayne LaPierre become the leader of the NRA, he developed a very sophisticated marketing approach to the way they message and do their business, and I think they’ve had a great deal of success in selling their brand, as this brand based on American values — Freedom, Independence, Liberty, and self-reliance — getting people to think about the American values they agree with, so they never have to get to the point of looking at what the NRA is really advocating for. I think there’s a lot of power in that.

He speaks of Independence, Liberty and self-reliance as if it were a bad thing. But I think this is one of the more insightful things I’ve heard out of Ladd, because this is pretty much how NRA markets itself. The problem is, what American value can you sell with gun control? I mean, Independence, Liberty and self-reliance could arguably be the three principles that sum up this country. What American value involves ignoring its Bill of Rights and taking people’s freedoms away? So far the best they’ve been able to come up with is “common sense,” and we can see how well that’s working for them.

Live Blogging the Philly OC Trial

From What Starts with W. For those of you who might not remember, this is the case of the guy made to eat pavement for OCing a pistol down the streets of Philadelphia while in possession of a valid License to Carry. You can see the YouTube video that started it all here.

Apparently the verdict is not guilty. He was charged with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. I sincerely hope this helps his Civil Rights lawsuit.

Words I Never Expected to Hear out of Northampton: Smithies Protest for More Meat

I know that many of you won’t get the headline, but for those who do, well, you understand. For those who don’t, I’ll just let the article sum up why I’m shocked.

All last week, students at Smith College were buzzing over a rumor that the school was going completely vegetarian and locavore. There were protests and counter-protests, with slogans chalked on walkways. There was a Twitter feed that caught the attention of VegNews, “America’s premier vegan lifestyle magazine.’’ At a student government meeting, the dining services manager came under attack: How did she expect students to pass their midterms without coffee?

The rumor was started on purpose by two professors teaching a logic class. Half the class was to drum up support for a ban on meat and non-local goods while the other half was to demonstrate against it. Suddenly, it made sense. There’s no way that Smith students would actually protest in favor of meat unless it was an assignment.

What amazes me is that the rumor managed to get serious traction even though there were clear signs that it was fake. A fake student group was speaking out on favor of it, and yet the rumor spread. Did no one look the group up? On top of that, even the college staff pointed out that the campus would at least demand a committee to come to a decision like this.

For those of you not in the know about why this is newsworthy regarding Smith, there was one rumor that they could not get to catch on: grassroots support for an ROTC program.

OCing Rifles to Occupy Protests

While I generally don’t believe that OCing a rifle is a good public relations tactic, I’d much rather have dozens of OC protesters in the park near my house, carrying rifles, than I would a hippy drum circle. At least the OC guys will be quiet and go home at the end of the day. They probably also shower.

Big Sis Grilled on Fast and Furious

She says she didn’t know anything, because it was an ATF operation, and not under her authority. Really, either way this goes it’s not good. Either they are lying, or the Obama Administration are just a big group of know-nothing, do-nothing administrators who are essentially sucking away out tax dollars for not actually overseeing anything. You almost hope they are lying.