The Devil Is in the Details: ...Indeed, the most disturbing thing about
the questioning of Clement was not the prospect of incorporation, but of
its potential limitations. Said Stevens:
"Mr. Clement, would you comment on Justice Kennedy's question about
whether it necessarily incorporates every jot and tittle of the
Federal right into the Federal, keeping in mind that with regard to
trial by jury in criminal cases there is a difference, non-unanimous
juries. Why does this incorporation have to be every bit as broad as
the Second Amendment itself? He later asked: "...whether it should
be just the substance of the right or the - the every detail."
For his own part, Chief Justice Roberts seemed eager to enable the
"reasonable restrictions" apparently permitted by Heller:
"That still allows scope, once you determine that the right is
incorporated, for recognizing that the States might have broader
interests that the Federal Government doesn't have."
And when Feldman allowed that, "This is a right that has always been
subject to the political process," Roberts responded:
"Well, sure, and it's still going to be subject to the political
process if the Court determines that it is incorporated in the Due
Process Clause. All the arguments you make against incorporation it
seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation
under the Second Amendment. We haven't said anything about what the
content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller."
The Supreme Court seems predisposed to applying the Second Amendment to
the states. Some have even speculated the vote will not be the
now-typical 5-4 conservative-liberal split, but rather 7-2. What that
means for gun laws on the books, however, is far from clear. (And this
is before we've ever seen the actual ruling. I'm not aware of any level
of the judiciary at which judges rule to reduce future litigation and I
have no expectation that the ruling in McDonald will address
registration or carry outside the home.)
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d3-McDonald-v-Chicago-Is-incorporation-a-distinction-without-a-difference
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to overturn Chicago's
handgun ban in a case gun rights groups plan to use against firearms
laws in New York City and nationwide. Mayor Bloomberg and the city chose
to sit out the case and did not file a brief with the court supporting
President Obama's hometown of Chicago. "We don't expect it to impact on
New York laws," a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs.
Chicago. But both gun rights and gun control groups predict a rash of
suits [emphasis added] aimed at loosening the city's rules on gun permits...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_justices_taking_aim_at_gun_ban.html
If the Supreme Court overturns Chicago's ban on handguns in the city,
gun rights advocates say just about every gun law in California,
including the state's ban on assault weapons, could be called into
question. "They'll all be challenged," said Sam Paredes, executive
director of the lobbying group Gun Owners of California, of the state's
gun laws. "I would envision that if there are 20,000 regulations,
somewhere about 19,500 of them will be challenged in the court system.
It will be an amazing thing." ... Among the California gun laws that
could be challenged are the state's prohibition on assault weapons, such
as the AR-15 and the AK-47. Paredes said the court could hold, on future
challenges, that the Second Amendment intends to allow citizens to arm
themselves with the weapons used by the military, which would include
assault weapons currently outlawed in California. The state's guidelines
for allowing local officials to grant concealed-carry weapon permits
could also be challenged. City police chiefs and county sheriffs can
deny concealed weapon permits for essentially no reason, gun rights
advocacy groups say. "If they're going to regulate concealed-carry
(permits), then legal, exposed, loaded carrying would have to be allowed
in California," said Mike McCurdy, owner of Mike's Discount Guns in
Montclair. "That's an argument that's going to be raised." ... (This
will depend on how much of the comments the Justices have made find
their way into the ruling. In Heller there were signals such as "in
common use" and distinctions between keeping a handgun in the home and
bearing a concealed handgun in public.)
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14507778?nclick_check=1
During oral arguments this week, U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled
their intention to overturn Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation handgun
ban. Still, Mayor Daley isn't giving an inch. In fact, he's ridiculing
the high court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms
while sitting in a protective bubble. "Why can't I go to the Supreme
Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is
so important to us on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to
the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone.
But, I have a right to that gun," Daley said, his voice dripping with
sarcasm... On Wednesday, Daley once again refused to discuss a fallback
position. He was too busy arguing the merits - even in the face of
almost certain defeat... The D.C. Council subsequently replaced its
overturned law with new regulations that require gun owners to receive
five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years
and face criminal background checks every six years. That just might be
a roadmap Chicago is forced to follow. (One can only hope that if
Chicago institutes a training requirement, the ISRA will take steps to
ensure that the training is available at nominal cost.)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2082064,us-handgun-chicago-ban-030310.article
..My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law,
particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows:
"McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of
laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the
majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the
other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not
care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers' bad ideas,
they could disregard it." That is an apt summary of how all cases are
handled by the federal judiciary. Typical of Leftmedia summations, The
New York Times opined, "At least five justices appeared poised to expand
the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear
arms." Expand? Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that
asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in
Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment's scope. But considering
the source... (When quoting the Federalists, one must be aware that they
were basically disingenuous in their efforts to "sell" the newly
proposed Constitution. Recall that it was Hamilton who suddenly
discovered the concept of implied powers, once the Constitution was
adopted. Justice Story, who is generally credited with coining the
"palladium of liberties" phrase, was definitely a Hamiltonian. That
quotation, in full context, is posted at
http://www.spw-duf.info/quotes.html; it places great emphasis on the
role of the militia.)
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/03/04/second-amendment-still-the-palladium-of-liberties/
..I wish the Supreme Court would do more than rule the Second Amendment
applies to the states. It's long past time the last, ridiculous cobwebs
of ambiguity were cleared away from the right to keep and bear arms. Gun
control has been simmering on low heat for a while, after boiling over
in the Nineties. We should clear it off the Constitutional stove
altogether. We have better things to do than slip into another bitter,
tedious argument about whether the government can interfere with our
right, and duty, to defend ourselves. The notion that citizens have no
good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent
crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its
subjects. The government reduces crime through the police and court
systems, but no matter how tirelessly the police work, there is very
little chance they can actively defend you from assault. There aren't
enough of them, and there never could be. The very areas of privacy that
allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft
targets for criminals... unless we fortify them ourselves. The police
arrived at my house several minutes too late to play a role in my
attempted execution. They made excellent time - there happened to be a
unit in the area. If things had gone a little different, they might have
arrived just in time to avenge me...
http://www.doczero.org/2010/03/to-keep-and-bear-arms/
---
Chicago's Pointless Handgun Ban: When Chicago passed a ban on handgun
ownership in 1982, it was part of a trend. Washington, D.C. had done it
in 1976, and a few Chicago suburbs took up the cause in the following
years. They all expected to reduce the number of guns and thus curtail
bloodshed... Maybe that's because there were so many flaws in the basic
idea. Or maybe it was because strict gun control makes even less sense
at the municipal level than it does on a broader scale. At any rate, the
policy turned out to be a comprehensive dud... One problem is that the
bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of
guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when
there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply... Gun control
supporters fear that if the Supreme Court invalidates local handgun
bans, the consequences will be nothing but bad. That would be easier to
believe if the laws had ever done any good.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/03/04/alice_in_health_care_part_iii?page=full
---
NRA Hindered, Did Not Block Sotomayor Confirmation: After the U.S.
Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor in August, a debate began over
how much influence the National Rifle Association had over the final
tally of 68-31. Liberals said the NRA, which opposed Sotomayor, had
failed, while conservatives said they were encouraged the gun-rights
group even got involved. Gregory Craig, who helped direct the
confirmation as White House counsel, said Tuesday that the NRA
opposition certainly hurt. "I believe that Justice Sotomayor would have
received many, many more votes from Republicans in the Senate if the NRA
had not, out of the blue, without any warning, opposed her nomination
and, with very little justification whatsoever, made the Senate vote on
Sotomayor a pro-gun versus an anti-gun vote," Craig said in a speech at
Georgetown University... (So the NRA, out of the blue and without
warning opposed her confirmation. As I recall, it was GOA that led that
charge, forcing NRA to get involved.)
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/gregory-craig-debriefs-on-sotomayor-nomination.html
---
Democrats Maneuver to Keep Virginia Purchase Limit: The latest and most
significant effort to repeal Virginia's gun laws faces a critical vote
on Thursday, when senators will consider a measure that would undo the
state's landmark one-gun-a-month law. Democrats, who control the Senate,
will try to kill the legislation through a newly formed subcommittee
that they stacked with anti-gun lawmakers. Republicans and other gun
rights advocates have protested, saying that rules prohibit
subcommittees from killing bills; they are demanding a vote by the full
Senate Courts of Justice Committee. Republicans are outnumbered there as
well, but they hope that enough pro-gun Democrats will join them to vote
the measure out of committee. Leaders of both parties are unsure which
way a vote would go on the Senate floor. The Republican-controlled House
has voted to repeal the law, and Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has said
he supports doing away with it. McDonnell voted for the law as a
delegate nearly two decades ago but has said recently that advances in
background checks make it unnecessary...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303807.html
---
Minnesota Could Restrict Gun-Show Transfers: From Virginia to Arizona,
federal and state gun laws are loosening everywhere from national parks
to Amtrak trains. But in St. Paul, a proposal that would send Minnesota
in the opposite direction is headed toward its first hearing Friday - a
bill requiring background checks on the purchaser of any firearm sold at
a gun show. The proposal pits its DFL sponsor, St. Paul Rep. Michael
Paymar, against the mighty arsenal of gun rights advocates and lobbyists
who have managed to turn back nearly every effort to tighten Minnesota's
gun laws in the past... The protests from gun rights advocates have
already begun rolling in. Alexa Fritts, a national spokeswoman for the
NRA, has termed Paymar's plan "the first step toward ending gun shows in
Minnesota" and will lobby against it. Rep. Paul Kohls, lead Republican
on Paymar's committee, said Paymar's bill is "very, very unlikely" to be
adopted... (Don't forget that one of the constitutional-carry bills in
Arizona was poisoned with an amendment to require citizenship checks by
private parties selling firearms, even though state and federal laws
recognize the RKBA or permanent resident aliens.)
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/86291022.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
---
Wisconsin Could Tighten Background Checks: The Senate unanimously passed
a bill Tuesday mandating mental health information be included in
background checks for firearm purchases in Wisconsin. The bill would
bring Wisconsin into compliance with current federal law concerning
handgun sales, as well as put Wisconsin in the company of many other
states that have worked to monitor mental health histories and gun
purchases in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007... Wisconsin
law does not require background checks through the NICS. Wisconsin
handgun vendors must perform a criminal background check through the
state Department of Justice that does not necessarily include
information on court-ordered mental health treatment or involuntary
commitment. Some law enforcement groups see the passage of the bill as a
positive step toward better gun control... Others see the bill as
furthering the stigma that mental illness and violence go hand in
hand... (More than stigma, linking mental-health records to the RKBA may
discourage many people from seeking professional help in that field.)
http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/03/04/bill_would_require_m.php
---
Montana Gun Owners Rally: If anybody was looking to take a
constitutional right, or anything else, away from the well-armed folks
standing along Hamilton's main drag Wednesday, they might well have been
in for a nasty fight. Never mind the impressive arsenal at hand - there
was everything from assorted pistols to hunting rifles to a bayoneted
1816 muzzle-loading musket to a PTR 91 .308 caliber assault rifle - a
message was on display, brought with intent by the roughly fourscore who
lined U.S. Highway 93. The rally placards waved at passing vehicles
declared this was a group ready to do battle for the right to own and
carry a gun. "Our rights are granted to us by God, not by any human
being," said Duane Sipe of Hamilton, owner of the PTR 91. "And no one
can take them away. They're called inalienable rights - the Declaration
of Independence." ...Mona Docteur, Celebrating Conservatism's treasurer,
said 1,000 people, mostly from Ravalli County, had signed the
declaration... (While serving as sheriff of Ravalli County, Jay Printz
joined with then-sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County AZ in a
successful lawsuit against a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act of 1993.)
http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_6b3cb05a-2745-11df-836b-001cc4c03286.html
---
Illinois Gun Owners to Rally: The streets of Springfield will be awash
in gold March 10th as thousands of law-abiding firearm owners descend on
the Capitol to lobby for restoration of their rights. Organizers of the
2010 edition of Illinois Gun Owners' Lobby Day (IGOLD) predict that this
year's event will set records for attendance and will further solidify
bi-partisan support for gun law reform. This year's event kicks off at
11:45 a.m. with a rally at the Prairie Capitol Convention Center,
followed by a march to the Capitol where yet another rally will be held
on the Lincoln Steps. From there, attendees - many of whom will be
dressed in gold t-shirts and hats - will disperse to visit their
Senators and Representatives and attend committee hearings. At 4:00
p.m., participants return to the Prairie Capitol Convention Center for
an address by Illinois State Senator Bill Brady. The day will end with
a 6:00 p.m. reception at Operating Engineers Local 965 Hall located at
3520 East Cook. Full information on the event, including transportation
options, may be found at:
http://igold.isra.org/...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/massive-gun-rights-rally-slated-for-illinois-capitol-86190392.html
---
Do as I Say, Not as I Do: A report of "supermodel" Naomi Campbell
expressing her anger through violence is once more making news. From
Kathryn Brown, CBS 2 HD News: "Campbell is accused of slapping her New
York City driver. He said she then jumped out of the car and fled." Ah,
another rich, powerful celebrity showing enlightened solidarity with the
working class. But I said "once more." What's up with that? From Colin
Monynihan at The New York Times: "...Naomi Campbell...was charged with
assaulting her housekeeper with a telephone...the housekeeper, Ana
Scolavino, 41, was struck in the back of the head by the telephone. She
was taken to Lenox Hill Hospital, where she received four staples for a
gash..." And we learn that was not the first time Campbell has taken her
rage out on the help: "In 1998, she was arrested by the police in
Toronto and charged with assaulting an assistant." ...Which makes it
interesting that Ms. Campbell lent her name to the magazine
Marie-Claire's anti-gun efforts, when they "asked celebrities...to join
us in our campaign for sensible gun laws." ...
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d3-Should-Naomi-Campbell-push-for-gun-control-or-self-control
---
Rule Two Reminder: An Atlanta police recruit was taken to Grady Memorial
Hospital on Wednesday morning after shooting himself in the leg at the
city's police academy. The shooting happened about 6:40 a.m. at the
training academy on Southside Industrial Parkway in southeast Atlanta,
according to police dispatchers. Atlanta police spokesman Eric Schwartz
said the recruit, whose name has not been released, was cleaning his
personal gun in the parking lot of the academy when the weapon
accidentally discharged, shooting him in the left leg. He was taken to
Grady, where he was in stable condition, Schwartz said. The Atlanta
police public affairs unit issued a statement Wednesday afternoon that
said the department does not allow recruits to bring weapons onto
academy property. An investigation into the incident is being conducted
by the police internal affairs unit, the statement said. (Rule Two:
Don't let the muzzle cross anything you're not prepared to shoot.
Certain pistols, including Glocks, S&W Sigmas and Kahrs, normally
require the trigger to be pressed as part of the disassembly process.
S&W eliminated that requirement in their M&P pistols with the
incorporation of a deactivation lever that must be pressed down, which,
in turn, requires that the slide is locked back in the clearing process.)
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/atlanta-police-recruit-shoots-343809.html
---
Self-Defense Shooters Motivated by Fear?: ...All of this seems obvious
enough to those who train realistically to apply the technology of
self-defense to real-life needs. It is apparently lost, however, on
Duane Thomas. Mr. Thomas wrote an editorial for the March 2010 issue of
The Blue Press (a catalog published by a leading manufacturer of
reloading equipment) called "The Martial Gamesman." In it, Mr. Thomas
opines that those who "approach skill with a handgun solely for the
purpose of self-defense" are in decades-long conflict with those who
"approach [handgun shooting] as a sport to be mastered." Using this
false and slyly insulting dichotomy as his premise, he goes on to assert
that it is "common knowledge that gamesmen on average have a much higher
skill level than martial artists." ...Mr. Thomas goes on to claim,
outrageously and without substantiation, that most
"self-defense-oriented shooters are motivated by fear," while most
"competition shooters are motivated by love" and "thus work MUCH harder
at it." This is the sort of reasoning used by the leftists, the
liberals, the Democrats who hold self-defense and firearms ownership in
contempt. It says, "Those who engage in my sport are good, while those
who do not share my interest in my sport are inferior." ...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126812
---
From AzCDL:
We are expecting SB 1168 to be scheduled on the Senate Committee of the
Whole (COW) agenda for Thursday, March 4, 2010. SB 1168 strengthens
state firearms preemption laws, adds firearms storage and accessories to
the list of things political subdivisions cannot regulate, and removes
the prohibition on carrying a firearm in public parks without a CCW permit.
Please contact your Senator urging them to support SB 1168 during the
COW debate.
A letter has been prepared and is waiting for you at our Action Center:
http://capwiz.com/azcdl/issues/alert/?alertid=14753896 .
If you haven't already done so, please send a message to the Senate
Appropriations Committee members reminding them to support the amended
SB 1108 (Constitutional Carry), which is on their Friday agenda. A
direct link to your letter is here:
http://capwiz.com/azcdl/issues/alert/?alertid=14750316 .
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 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
