Category: 2nd Amendment

Cam Edwards digs up something from Justice Kennedy that is good to keep in mind as we head toward oral arguments tomorrow.  I also understand that Cam has quite a show lined up for today and tomorrow, so be sure to watch starting at 9PM eastern at NRANews.

Jacob reports that Bob Levy says he’ll target New York City’s Sullivan Act after Heller.  Chicago would be a more obvious target post-Heller, because of the similarity with the D.C. ban.  Wouldn’t it be best to keep the courts focused strictly on the incorporation issue, rather than have to deal with extraneous issues?  There’s little doubt in my mind that New York City’s Sullivan Act is unconstitutional, but to me, that’s a more appropriate target after we go for incorporation using an outright ban similar to The Districts.   The Sullivan Act can wait.

The line for hearing Heller oral arguments began to form at 5:35pm last night, according to Professor Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy.  While it would be nice to get to hear history being made, I think there are those far more deserving to hear arguments than am I, plus, there’s no way in hell I’m camping out in Washington DC overnight when I can’t carry.

Dave Kopel has some interesting data on recent polling:

In the WaPo poll, 72% of respondents said that they considered the Second Amendment to be an individual right, not just for militia only. The is essentially identical to the most recent Gallup Poll (conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008) in which 73% of respondents said that the Second Amendment was an individual right, not limited only to militia.

The WaPo poll also asked “Would you support or oppose a law in your state that bans private handgun ownership and requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded or have a trigger lock?” 59% said yes.

Dave wonders about the dichotomy, but I think it’s a poor poll question.  It confuses the issue of the handgun ban with the idea that guns should be stored unloaded and have a trigger lock.  Most people support that idea.  That number of people polled in the “somewhat support” was 29%, meaning maybe they liked storing guns unloaded, but didn’t like the handgun ban.  You can’t know from this polling question.  It poll also doesn’t stipulate that there’s no self-defense exception to this rule under DC law.  Most people were no doubt not thinking about the self-defense implications here.

You can get a poll to return anything you want just based on how you ask the question.

From Clayton Cramer:

Pray for Alan Gura, the attorney representing us before the Supreme Court in Heller. He is carrying a considerable responsibility, and this is his first case that he will argue before the Supreme Court.

I’m not much of a religious man, but we’ll take all the help we can get.

Many of you probably have read this article by now in the Washington Post detailing the battle of the Administration’s Heller brief, as I’ve seen it linked on other blogs.

Dave Hardy’s insights into the inner workings of federal buracracy are always good, if more than a little disturbing.  Having spend many years in it himself, he’s someone to listen to.  He has a take on this I think is worth reading.

… until Heller oral arguments.  Start crossing your fingers.

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.

Pennsylvania has one of the most clear and indisputable right to bear arms provisions of any state in the country.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Dave Hardy says that a new law review article, referenced by DC and its amici, is now online for the rest of us to read.  Dave says:

The main theme is to try to demonstate that Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration, which guaranteed the right of citizens to bear arms for defense of themselves and the state, meant something other than an individual right. The gist of the demonstration is that at the time lots of privotal Pennsylvanians were concerned about creating a mandatory militia. OK, so what? The 1776 Constitution had references to that. There’s no showing that the fact that many wanted a mandatory militia caused the right to arms clause to be inserted in the Declaration.

I won’t go into detail because the article has been critiqued in depth by Clayton Cramer and by Dave Kopel. Clayton points out that the article actually cites Bellesiles!

Unbelievable.

Clayton Cramer analyzes some of the obfuscation made by The District of Columbia in their reply brief in the Heller case.