Justices Appear to Reject "Privileges and Immunities": The U.S. Supreme
Court will almost certainly extend the scope of the Second Amendment
right to bear arms to limit state and federal regulation of firearms,
based on oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago on Tuesday. But
comments from the justices made it clear they want to do it the
old-fashioned way - through the 14th Amendment's due process clause,
rather than via the same amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause,
which had been advanced as a better way to bolster a range of rights
including economic rights. Several justices also indicated that, as with
other individual rights, states and cities will be able to impose some
regulations on firearms... Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky in Alexandria,
Va., who won the Heller case in 2008, argued in Tuesday's case on behalf
of Chicago residents who wanted handguns for personal safety. But Gura
faced a more hostile Court this time, because he was making the untested
argument that the 14th Amendment's guarantee that states may not abridge
the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship was the best route to
applying the Second Amendment to the states. Almost immediately, Chief
Justice John Roberts Jr. told Gura, "it's a heavy burden for you to
carry," because using that clause would require the Court to overturn
the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873, "which have been the law for 140
years." Gura said that precedent did not deserve to stand. Next came
Justice Antonin Scalia, who asked whether the privileges or immunities
route was "easier" than invoking the traditional due process argument
for incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. When Gura answered
no, Scalia exclaimed, "Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us
to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law?" Unless, he said, "you are
bucking for a place on some law school faculty." Scalia also said that
"What you argue is the darling of the professoriate." Gura said wanly,
"I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to
return." Scalia persisted. "Why do you want to undertake that burden
instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I
think it's wrong - even I have acquiesced in it?" Justices Anthony
Kennedy and Stephen Breyer seemed concerned about possible unforeseen
consequences of adopting the new way of incorporating the Second
Amendment. "How are federal judges supposed to carry this out?" Breyer
said. "I want to see where we are going." Gura finally backed off,
acknowledging that "we would be extremely happy if the Court reverses
the lower court based on the substantive due process theory that we
argued in the 7th Circuit." ...

http://snipurl.com/um28i

..This turn of events is unfortunate because reviving the Privileges or
Immunities Clause, far from giving judges free reign to impose their
policy views, would actually tie them closer to the text, structure, and
history of the Constitution.  As it stands now - and as it seems will be
the case after McDonald is decided - many of our most cherished rights
are protected only to the extent that judges are willing to label them
as sufficiently "fundamental" to warrant such protection.  That is an
unprincipled jurisprudence and one that hurts the rule of law. In short,
it is a shame that the Supreme Court seems to be wasting a perfect
opportunity to bring constitutional law closer to the Constitution.  It
is an even greater shame that it is wasting this chance to use guns to
protect liberty.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/02/gun-rights-secure-liberty-less-so/

..Justice Breyer drew only thinly veiled ridicule from conservatives on
the Court when he suggested that there be a constitutional "chart" drawn
up to rank the higher and lower priorities of rights that would be
protected against state and local infringement - perhaps the highest
rank safeguarding the right to have a gun in community self-defense (as
with a "militia") but with a decidedly lower rank for a right to "shoot
burglars."  While that idea drew no support, the notion that the Second
Amendment right restricting state and local gun laws would not be an
absolute right had significant appeal, it appeared... Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, one of the dissenters in Heller, then moved in to press Gura
on just what "unenumerated rights" would be protected if the Court were
to revive the "privileges or immunities" clause. It was a theme that
would recur often thereafter, solidifying the appearance that the
argument had virtually no chance of succeeding.  (In fact, when Gura
near the end of the argument returned to the podium for his rebuttal,
his time was used up by Justices Ginsburg and Anthony M. Kennedy
exploring what other rights might come into being if the Court gave new
life to the "privileges or immunities" clause.  He responded that he
could not provide a full list, to which Justice Scalia retorted:
"Doesn't that trouble you?"  It was obvious that it troubled the Court.)
..The Court's strong leanings in the case became even more evident
during questioning of Feldman, the lawyer for the two cities involved in
the case.  Although he absolutely needs the vote of Justice Kennedy if
his plea is to prevail, he almost immediately frustrated Kennedy by
arguing that gun rights were not an essential attribute of "ordered
liberty," thus questioning whether such rights qualify as fundamental.
If they are not, Kennedy shot back, then the Heller decision was wrongly
decided.   And Chief Justice Roberts told Feldman that there was no way
to read the Heller opinion to make the Second Amendment seem a less
important right. Tellingly, however, the Chief Justice commented that
"we haven't said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment
is," so that, over time, it may develop that state and local governments
may well be allowed to impose restrictions, such as bans on carrying
concealed weapons.  And Scalia reminded Feldman that the Court in the
Heller decision had left room for some regulation of guns even though
the Second Amendment now embraced a personal right to have a gun.
Kennedy also noted that "there are provisions of the Constitution" that
allow states to have "significant latitude" in regulating what those
provisions seek to protect...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/

The same members of the Supreme Court who ruled two years ago that the
Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a firearm seemed
ready Tuesday to ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not
interfere with it. But a majority also indicated that the states may
have "broader interests" in restricting gun ownership than the federal
government. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to say that ruling
that the Second Amendment is "incorporated" to apply to state and local
governments in establishing a fundamental right to gun ownership would
be just the first step in eventually deciding myriad issues relating to
gun control. Deciding that the Second Amendment applies "doesn't say
anything by itself about whether those types of regulations, which you
think are reasonable and your friends think may not be reasonable, are
valid or not," Roberts told the attorney for two Chicago area
jurisdictions whose laws are at issue...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html

Then the libertarian lawyer again took the podium to offer his rebuttal
arguments. As things went back to the Privileges or Immunities Clause,
the conservative justices embraced the conservative argument against the
McDonald team, correctly noting that overruling Slaughter-House would
empower federal judges to declare all sorts of novel constitutional
rights, and sit in judgment to strike down state and local laws on
issues where the U.S. Constitution is silent. Such an outcome violates
our federal system of government, where the states are sovereign to
makes any laws they choose through the legislatures elected by their
voters on every issue where the U.S. Constitution does not empower the
federal government to decide them, or declare a constitutional right. So
in the end, it's almost certain that the Second Amendment will be
incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that
most or all of the justices supporting incorporation will do so through
the Due Process Clause. The Chicago gun ban is about to suffer the same
fate as the D.C. gun ban. There are plenty of questions, however. Will
all four liberal justices oppose incorporation? Will some support
incorporation, but still vote to uphold the Chicago ban? What else will
be said about gun rights in the Court's opinion that will shape future
Second Amendment cases? It's unclear from oral argument as to which way
these things will come down. We'll find out when the Supreme Court hands
down its decision, which is expected in late June. But what we know
already is that today was a good day for the NRA, and a great day for
the Second Amendment.

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2010/03/03/supreme_court_debates_whether_states_can_ban_guns?page=full

..Gura may get the win, but not for any brilliant strategic planning -
there was open hostility to the idea, central to his arguments, of 2A
being a Privilege or Immunity of citizenship (I'll discuss soon). The
win, if there is one, may be more of a result of the bench being
unprepared to treat 2A as some special bastard child the states do not
have to follow, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights that has been
incorporated so far. And let me tell you, thank God for the NRA. They
took a lot of heat for asking for and getting some of Gura's oral
argument time, using Paul Clement who had argued the government's
unsavory position for a low standard of scrutiny in Heller, getting
their hat in the ring. That turned out to be baloney, they were life
savers. Considering the ferocity with which Gura and P&I were attacked,
we were lucky to have at elegant, articulate, eloquent voice to apply 2A
through Due Process. (Don't get me wrong, Chicago fared just as poorly,
but for different reasons.) Clement's arguments were so well made and so
compelling, he got to speak at length without interruption, with the
Justices in rapt attention. I asked him about that afterwards and he
said yeah, it was really nice getting some "air time." ... (This is
excerpted from a mailing from Alan Korwin. It is clear at this time why
the NRA was given "air time." However, those of you who have read Alan's
reports on Heller may share my impression that he is particularly
friendly to NRA intervention in both cases. Gura is no fool and, had
Clement not been scheduled for argument, might well have been able to
argue the "due process" side, once the justices made it clear that that
was what they wanted to hear.)

.. Gun rights advocates have said they've been waiting for the court's
ruling in this case to begin challenging gun regulations nationwide. At
one point in Tuesday's argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted
the city's lawyers doubted that people had a right to carry concealed
weapons in public. "Well, maybe that's right," Roberts said. But he
quickly added that the question could be left for a future case,
indicating that the court was not likely to sweep away additional gun
regulations in this ruling. But the clear message from the argument is
that a five-member majority on the court thinks the right "to bear arms"
is a fundamental right, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be
unduly restricted by federal regulations, state laws or city ordinances...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns3-2010mar03,0,3193015.story

.. But the ultimate showdown over gun control in America will be waged
in a future legal case not yet on the high court's radar, analysts say.
At issue in that case: Are Second Amendment rights as fundamental as
freedom of speech and religion, or will gun rights be subject to lesser
constitutional protection? The answer to that question - and the
potential future course of gun control - may rest with a majority of the
nine men and women on the Supreme Court. When that future case arrives,
it will all boil down to a three-word phrase of legal jargon: "standard
of review." The way the Supreme Court protects individual constitutional
rights against encroachment by the government is by weighing the
government's interest in a particular law against the individual right
preserved in the Constitution. For example, when the government passes a
law censoring people from engaging in core political speech, the court
requires the government to demonstrate it has a compelling interest in
the censorship and to prove that the measure is the least intrusive
means of achieving that governmental interest. If it can't prove both,
the law must be struck down. Not all rights warrant the toughest level
of constitutional protection. In the intermediate level, judges often
attempt to balance competing interests to reach the proper outcome...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0302/Supreme-Court-gun-control-and-the-Second-Amendment-a-reckoning

The Transcript:

\http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

Pre-Hearing NPR Interview with Gura:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124243589
---

Does the RKBA Apply outside the Home?: ...Assuming the Court strikes
down Chicago's handgun ban, what other forms of gun control could be
vulnerable? Since the Second Amendment protects the right to "bear" arms
as well as the right to "keep" them, restrictions on carrying guns in
public are a ripe target. Forty-one states either do not require handgun
carry permits or issue them to anyone who satisfies a few objective
criteria, which generally include firearms training and lack of a
criminal record. Seven states let local officials decide whether to
issue permits, while Illinois, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., do not
allow even that option. Last summer, Tom Palmer, one of the original
plaintiffs in the D.C. gun ban case, filed a federal lawsuit that
challenges the District's prohibition on carrying guns in public.
Palmer, a scholar at the Cato Institute, knows from personal experience
that such restrictions can be deadly: He vividly recalls how brandishing
a handgun on a Northern California street saved him from a group of
thugs who shouted anti-gay slurs and threats at him on a summer night in
1982. District officials predictably warn that chaos would ensue from
allowing law-abiding people to carry guns in public. But that has not
happened in any of the states with nondiscretionary carry permit policies...

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/03/carry-on
---

McDonald Speaks Again: Otis McDonald doesn't care what you think. You
can accuse the black inner-city grandfather of betraying Chicago
neighborhoods overrun by thugs with guns. Go ahead, call him a pawn of
wealthy, white gun-nuts suing to lift the city's handgun ban. But the
76-year-old Morgan Park man who has become the face of one of the most
important Second Amendment lawsuits in history wants you to know this:
He is not a ''showpiece'' for the pro-gun lobby in the landmark case
that could overturn Chicago's handgun ban. The case is set to come
before the U.S. Supreme Court today. ''It doesn't matter what anyone's
motives were for picking me for this,'' McDonald said. ''I have my own
motives, and they are so compelling and so heavy that to me this is
worthy of my effort.'' The liberal South Side Democrat said he put
himself in the spotlight over the right to pack a pistol because he's
living on a block where the bad guys with guns have him outnumbered and
overpowered...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2078097,CST-NWS-guns02.article
---

Waiting for McDonald: Mike Sacks likes to be the first person in line
for big Supreme Court arguments, and he was feeling pretty confident
when he arrived at the court Monday morning around 8, 26 hours before
the court would hear a big gun control case. But he found a couple from
California already set up in lawn chairs. Robert Cumberland and Larken
Euliss, two chemists from California, had arrived before dawn. "I felt
bad for him," Mr. Cumberland said of Mr. Sacks. "But I'm not going to
abdicate. I flew across the country for this." Mr. Cumberland wore a
button that said "Guns Save Lives," and he said the case to be argued on
Tuesday, McDonald v. Chicago, was "going to force states like California
to recognize that the Second Amendment is an individual right." ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03line.html?ref=us
---

Was This a Bad Thing?: ... Obama knew that he couldn't win the
presidency without getting a good number of votes from America's 90
million gun owners. At this point, he had already locked up the
Democratic nomination, and was now focused on the general election. So
he did a 180 on his long-held beliefs, and announced that the Court made
the right decision in Heller... In major cases, it's typical for the
Justice Department to file a brief informing the Supreme Court of the
position of the United States. The Office of the Solicitor General - the
elite legal team that represents the federal government whenever the
United States is a party in a Supreme Court case - routinely files
briefs in high-profile cases... So what is the position of the Obama
administration? How can he oppose the rights of 90 million Americans,
many of whom are blue collar union workers in swing states that he needs
to win in 2012? To do so would also help drive Democrats into the
minority in the 2010 midterm elections. On the other hand, how can he
reverse his position of more than a decade in supporting Chicago's
absolute ban on firearms? In this difficult situation, President Obama's
position is ... Nothing. The solicitor general filed no brief in this
case. Just by way of comparison, in "Heller," Solicitor General Paul
Clement did more than file a brief, he actually fought for - and won -
the right to share some of the oral argument time before the Court to
fight for the position of the United States. In McDonald, Paul Clement
is again arguing before the Court. But now he's representing the
National Rifle Association, which as a party to this case, is again
fighting for the right to keep and bear arms. Clement's successor under
President Obama, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, won't be there at all -
even on paper. The difference here is stunning. If there's one case this
year where the Supreme Court needs the best legal analysis that the
Department of Justice can give, it's McDonald v. Chicago... (Hey, my
position here is, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything."
I'm not complaining if Big Brother's appointee didn't weigh in on the
wrong side and I wasn't counting her to weigh in on the right side.)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/02/ken-klukowski-obama-chicago-gun-ban-supreme-court-hiding-desk/
---

Meanwhile, in Springfield...: Gun rights proponents in the Illinois
Legislature began pushing several measures Tuesday to allow residents to
carry concealed weapons, timing the moves with a U.S. Supreme Court
challenge of Chicago's long-standing gun ban... Currently, Illinois is
one of just two states where conceal-carry is illegal. The other,
Wisconsin, allows "open" carry, which Illinois doesn't. Like Missouri's
conceal-carry law, the Illinois proposal would require applicants to
have clean criminal histories and no mental health issues. Exemptions
would continue to ban handguns in bars, casinos, horse tracks, schools,
stadiums and other venues... The measure passed the committee 11-1, with
Hamos as the only "no" vote. he measure now moves to the full House,
where its fate is uncertain. The committee that advanced the bill
Tuesday is populated largely by pro-gun rural downstate lawmakers, but
the full House is controlled by anti-gun Chicago Democrats... Also on
Tuesday, a state Senate committee considered a bill to establish a
conceal-carry pilot program in Peoria, Ill., and two others to allow
state's attorneys and corrections officers to carry weapons while off
duty. All three measures were assigned to a subcommittee for further
review...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/8955EEE4D9C4DD58862576DB0006D3A4?OpenDocument
---

And in Ohio...: Imagine a world where every town had completely
different traffic laws. Drive into Parma and suddenly you're required to
drive on the left side of the road. Enter Lakewood, and a red light
means to go and a green light means stop. Head into Westlake and get
arrested because white cars are illegal. That is the scenario facing gun
owners if Cleveland wins its bid to overturn statewide preemption in
Ohio. When concealed carry first passed in Ohio back in 2004, there was
a provision in the bill numbered "Section 9" that stated the intent of
the legislature was for the gun laws enacted to be uniform throughout
the state. This was to prevent a patchwork quilt of local gun laws where
a constitutionally protected right, enumerated in both the U.S. and Ohio
constitutions, was at the mercy the local politicians. With the stroke
of a pen your gun rights could be invalidated. Several Ohio cities,
including the City Cleveland, flaunted that attempt so House Bill 347
was passed which enacted Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which reads...

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Cleveland-continues-fight-for-local-gun-control
---

Virginia House Approves Restaurant CCW: A bill that allows people to
carry concealed handguns into bars has won final legislative passage and
heads now to Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell for his expected
signature. Vetoed for years by a Democratic governor, the bill opens the
way for people to go armed into places where alcohol is served. The law
forbids those who pack guns from drinking. The measure passed the House
on a 72-27 vote. Opponents argued that bringing firearms into places of
varying degrees of sobriety will come to a tragic end. Supporters say
it's a step that allows law-abiding people to defend themselves. (This
article ignores the fact that it is currently legal in Virginia not only
to carry an exposed firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol
but also to consume alcohol while doing so. What this bill does, in
exchange for a promise not to consume alcohol, is allow gun owners to
conceal their firearms from those who may be sufficiently intoxicated to
make a grab for them.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/va-house-passes-concealed-gun-bills/
---

University Board Ignores Students: Colorado State University's Board of
Governors, after hearing speaker after speaker supporting concealed
carry on campus, proceeded Tuesday to make CSU a gun free zone with a
unanimous vote. The Sheriff of Larimer county, where CSU is located, has
said he will not incarcerate anyone arrested for carrying a weapon on
campus if they had a concealed carry permit. The Gazette of Colorado
Springs is running a poll gauging support for the ban. As of this
writing, the results are shown in the image at left. Why don't our
leaders listen to the citizens?  This is just a local example. There are
no studies to support the thesis that banning guns by fiat stops killers
and demented people who intend to break many more serious laws.  A
student carrying on the CSU campus now would be expelled and probably be
hard pressed to get into another college with a "gun conviction" on his
record.  That is certainly a deterrent for a normal person.  A professor
would probably get dismissed far faster than Ward Churchill did if he
was caught on campus with an otherwise legally permitted weapon. Again,
big time deterrence for the good guys.  Now, the man who intends to kill
as many people as possible after he chains shut the doors to a classroom
building has other things on his mind than whether or not he will be
allowed to graduate after he is done.  No deterrence...

http://www.examiner.com/x-2944-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d2-CSU-Board-of-Governors-turns-a-deaf-ear-to-its-students
---

Wyoming Senate Tentatively Passes Firearms Freedom Act: Wyoming Firearms
Freedom Act-2 passes Senate second reading. Although it has been
attacked by anti-gun Senators pandering to the Anti-Gun Police Union, it
still has "Teeth". HB-95 needs to endure a third reading and then it
will require the Governor's approval. This legislation must move forward
without any more attacks on the language or it will become a mere
"Resolution" with "Pulled Teeth". To encourage the Senators to move the
bill forward call (307) 777-8683. Also call the Governor's Office at
(307) 777-7434. Tell them to pass HB-95 without any further adulteration
of the legislation.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/02/wyoming-firearms-freedom-act-2-passes-senate/
---

Brady Bunch Targets Starbucks: The campaign of coercion against
Starbucks Coffee by extremist anti-gunners is coming to Seattle
Wednesday morning with a press conference scheduled at 10:30 a.m. in
Victor Steinbrueck Park next to the Pike Place Market. Organized by the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Washington CeaseFire, this is
the latest chapter in their effort to force Starbucks and other
companies to act as corporate surrogates in their attempt to foster
social bigotry against firearm owners. So far, according to a news
release from the Brady Campaign, announcing the press event, this effort
has already forced Peet's Coffee & Tea, Buckhorn Grill and California
Pizza Kitchen to knuckle under. It is political thuggery disguised as
political theater, and is more aimed at grabbing the spotlight at a time
when these extremist organizations are losing their political clout as
well as their relevance...

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Antigun-extremists-bring-campaign-of-social-bigotry-to-Seattle-Wednesday

Starbucks Asks Not to Be Center of RKBA Debate: Coffee chain Starbucks
Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where
it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger
gun-control debate. The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems
from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks
and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry
weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested...
"Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open
carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding
customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and
potentially unsafe position," the company said in its statement. It said
security measures are in place for any "threatening situation" that
might occur in stores. Starbucks asked both gun enthusiasts and
gun-control advocates "to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners
into the middle of this divisive issue." ...

http://newsmax.com/US/US-Starbucks-Guns/2010/03/03/id/351506
---

Attention, Neighbors of Oregon: Unlike for its own residents, for whom
CHL's are shall-issue, Oregon law allows a sheriff the discretion to
issue a CHL to a resident of a contiguous state. Last November the
sheriff of Grant County announced that he would issue to all qualified
non-resident applicants. While this is the first time I have seen a
request of this sort, he is currently seeking donations to purchase a
digital fingerprint machine, ostensibly to enhance the acceptance rate
of applicants' fingerprints. (In Arizona, we are now routinely
submitting two sets of fingerprint cards with CWP applications, due to
the high rejection rate when the paper prints are transmitted
electronically.) Sheriff Palmer has also indicated that he would like to
travel to gun shows in contiguous states, to take applications in those
venues. Contributions, with a notation that they are intended for the
fingerprint machine, can be mailed to Grant County Sheriff's Office, 205
South Humbolt Street, Canyon City, OR 97820.

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/11.07.09%20alert.html
http://www.oregonsheriffs.org/grant/index.shtml
---

Rule Five Reminder: While this rule, maintain control of your firearm,
was initially formulated to avoid civil liability for improper storage,
it has tactical implications as well, as demonstrated in this video. (I
have not identified the country of origin and share it for the holster
lesson, not the snide comments - my impression is that the footage was
shot in some sort of crowd-control setting.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9v0ClnEFso
---

With Friends like These...: An 85-year-old man being treated at a
hospital in Danbury, Conn., pulled out a gun in the cardiac care unit on
Tuesday and opened fire, wounding a nurse before being tackled by
hospital workers, the police said. The shooting happened about 2:30 p.m.
as the gunman, a heart patient, was on the eighth floor of the Danbury
Hospital. An officer said a nurse approached the patient, Stanley
Lupienski, who suddenly pulled the gun from his hospital gown and opened
fire. The nurse, a man whose name was not released, was shot three times
and was hospitalized, said Detective Lt. Tom Michael of the Danbury
Police Department. He was expected to survive. After the shooting,
several security guards rushed Mr. Lupienski. As they struggled with
him, his gun discharged, and he was hit in the leg, Lieutenant Michael
said. Mr. Lupienski was hospitalized Tuesday night and was charged with
reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of a firearm and carrying a
revolver without a permit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03nurse.html?ref=nyregion
---

Tangentially Related: Breathing fire at an Obama-led federal government
he says has Texas in its crosshairs, two-term incumbent Republican
Governor Rick Perry claimed his party's nomination with more than 50
percent of the vote, avoiding a run off against three-term Republican
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Hutchison was once seen as the
candidate who could deliver Perry's first election loss in a lifetime of
public office, but the governor, a darling of the social conservatives,
forcefully painted the senator as too entrenched in Washington
politics... (While Hutchison has an "A+" rating from the NRA and an "A"
rating from GOA, NRA endorsed Perry, on the basis of his past and
ongoing support of the RKBA as governor.)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/hutchison-concedes-republican-gubernatorial-primary-gov-perry/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (LOW'-tuhn-burg) of New Jersey has returned
to work on Capitol Hill after being diagnosed with lymphoma and
receiving his first chemotherapy treatment last week...The U.S. Senate's
second-oldest member was hospitalized Feb. 15 after suffering a fall at
his Cliffside Park home. The following day he was treated for a bleeding
ulcer. The B-cell lymphoma was found in the ulcer. The senator was
discharged Thursday. He did not attend a Monday morning meeting with
Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the state's congressional
delegation. (Lautenberg is the author of the federal law that added the
misdemeanor offense of "domestic violence" to the list of
disqualifications for the lawful possession of a firearm and seeks to
add having one's name on a no-fly list, even though there is no due
process for such listing.)

http://newsmax.com/Politics/farnk-Lautenberg-Cancer-returns/2010/03/02/id/351431

Ronald Reagan is honored by, among other things, an airport, a freeway,
an aircraft carrier and - ironically for a critic of big government -
one of the biggest federal buildings in Washington. Now, some of the
late president's admirers are launching a new effort to add another
honor: printing his likeness on a $50 bill in place of Ulysses S.
Grant's. In polls of presidential scholars, Reagan consistently outranks
Grant, said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who introduced legislation
to make the change... (While I regard Reagan as having been an excellent
president, it is worth noting that he did sign an extension of
California's waiting period on handgun purchases to 15 days
[subsequently shortened to ten days when the waiting period was extended
to long guns] and the California law that bans the open carry of loaded
firearms in public places. After his presidency, he also spoke in
support of the Brady Bill and the 1994 federal ban on "assault weapons.")

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03,0,6008759.story
---

From AzCDL:

On Friday, March 5th at 10 AM, the Senate Appropriations Committee will
debate and vote on SB 1108.  The sponsor of SB 1108, Committee Chairman
Senator Russell Pearce, has proposed a "strike everything" amendment
that replaces SB 1108, in its entirety, with the intended language from
SB 1102 (Constitutional Carry).

SB 1102, which was headed for a Senate floor vote, was derailed last
week after the attachment of the Cheuvront amendment during the Senate
Committee of the Whole (COW), creating a Class 4 Felony for private
sellers of firearms who fail to verify a buyer's citizenship when the
sale is conducted at a gun show:
http://www.azcdl.org/html/news.html#CheuvrontAmendment.

Now that we have a second bite at the apple, it's critical we remind the
Senate Appropriations Committee members to support the amended SB 1108.
A letter has been prepared and is waiting for you at our Action Center:
http://capwiz.com/azcdl/issues/alert/?alertid=14750316

We have more good news.  Representative Frank Antenori
(http://azcdl.capwiz.com/bio/id/51325), who sponsored the House version
of Constitutional Carry (HB 2347), has been appointed to replace Senator
Jonathon Paton who vacated his seat to run for the U.S. House of
Representatives.  Senator Antenori is expected to be present when SB
1108 moves to the Senate floor for debate and vote.

Meanwhile, Senator Antenori's House version of Constitutional Carry, HB
2347, passed out of the MAPS Committee on February 3, 2010 and is
awaiting a review by the House Rules Committee before heading to a floor
debate in the House COW.

In other news, we are expecting SB 1168, the Senate version of the
firearms preemption bill, to be scheduled for a Senate COW debate,
hopefully this week.  When the calendar is posted, we will let you know
via an Alert.

Stay tuned!  When critical legislation moves, we will notify you via
these Alerts.

If you want to get legislative news as it happens, follow AzCDL on
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AzCDL_Alerts .
AzCDL "tweets" from the Capitol with committee votes and breaking news
as it happens.

You can also follow AzCDL on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/FacebookAzCDL .

AzCDL's Political Action Committee (PAC) is also on Facebook:
http://tinyurl.com/FacebookAzCDLPAC .

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League
(AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots
organization.  Renew your membership today!
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html .

AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html .

Copyright � 2010 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights
reserved.

--
Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY

Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.

The tactics and skills to use a firearm
in self-defense don't come naturally
with the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.spw-duf.info

You are viewing proxied material from pongonova.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.