Heller Loses a Round: Judge Ricardo Urbina of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia has just ruled that the D.C. firearm
ordinances enacted after the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision in
2008 "permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment
right to use firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home."
Urbina dismissed a case brought by Dick Heller, the same plaintiff who
challenged the previous D.C. ordinance at the Supreme Court. Heller
challenged the District's firearms registration process, its ban on
assault weapons, and its prohibition of "large capacity ammunition
feeding devices," claiming they violated the Second Amendment. In
analyzing the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Urbina said the Second
Amendment right to bear arms "is not unlimited." He cited Justice
Antonin Scalia's admonition that the Court's decision, while declaring
an individual right to bear arms, did not "cast doubt" on a range of
firearms regulations. Urbina said he was applying "intermediate
scrutiny" to D.C.'s new ordinances, and under that standard, he
concluded the regulations were permissible because they serve the
District's "important governmental interest" in public safety...Heller's
lawyer Stephen Halbrook said this afternoon the decision was
disappointing, and "I'd be surprised if we don't appeal." Halbrook, a
Virginia lawyer and Second Amendment scholar, commented that even though
Urbina said he was using an intermediate level of scrutiny in appraising
the D.C. law, he was in fact overly deferential toward the city. "He
repeated uncritically whatever the [D.C. Council] committee report
said." Halbrook also said the ultimate fate of the D.C. ordinance may
depend in part on what the Supreme Court says about how fundamental the
right to bear arms is in the pending case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/districts-postheller-firearm-restrictions-are-upheld.html
..The decision by Urbina, who was appointed by former President Bill
Clinton, moves the case along what is likely to be a lengthy path
through the legal system. "We fully expect to go the Court of Appeals,"
said Heller's lawyer Richard E. Gardiner. Urbina's opinion
"misinterprets Heller altogether," Gardiner said, referring to the
Supreme Court decision. In particular, he took issue with the judge's
observation that the Supreme Court did not explicitly declare the Second
Amendment right to be "fundamental." "It's clearly a fundamental right
because it's in the Bill of Rights," Gardiner said...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/judge-upholds-dcs-gun-limits/
---
Otis McDonald and the "Black Agenda": Otis McDonald isn't on anybody's
black agenda. But the thug who threatened his life sure as hell is.
McDonald is 76, black and ready to handle his own business. That is, if
the city of Chicago lets him. And so far, in a town known for corruption
and being run by a string of Democrats, Chicago doesn't want to let him.
It's about the guns, you see. Sometime during his 70-plus years in
America, McDonald has probably had occasion to read the Second
Amendment. You know, the one that goes "A well-regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Chicago lawmakers have
decided they know better than the silly old founding fathers who wrote
that stuff, so they gleefully infringe on the people's right to bear
arms. Infringe on if good, and infringe on it often... Now, how many of
you think that old Tavis extended McDonald a personal invitation to the
forum, the better to make this elderly brother part of the "black
agenda" and to offer him and other urban blacks who desperately need
protection from criminals some help? Smiley doesn't give a tinker's dam
about McDonald's plight; he's too busy frettin' about black guys in
prison and jail. Sharpton doesn't care about McDonald either. And if you
really want to get right down to it, neither does Obama...
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/baw_commentary_news/17375
---
George Washington - Socialist?: ...As every fervent advocate of gun
rights ought to know, however, that argument suffers from a glaring
historical flaw. Only a few years after the nation's Founding Fathers
ratified the Constitution, Congress approved the Militia Act of 1792,
which was duly signed by George Washington, then the president and
commander in chief. Establishing state militias and a national standard
for their operation, the Militia Act explicitly required every "free
able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, with a
few occupational exceptions, to "provide himself with a good musket or
firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a
knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than
twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock,
each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with
a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.." Within
six months, every citizen enrolled and notified of his required militia
service had to equip himself as specified above. There was spirited
debate in Congress as to whether the state ought to subsidize the
purchase of arms for men too poor to afford their own, so that everyone
could serve his country. Subsidized or not, however, the founders saw no
constitutional barrier to a law ordering every citizen to buy a gun and
ammo... (Requirements for every man to be armed for militia duty date
to before independence and debates about how to arm those who could not
afford both a rifle for subsistence and a musket that would also mount a
bayonet for militia duty have been misquoted by prohibitionists in their
arguments that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual RKBA.)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia/index.html
---
VPC Demonizes CCW: Gun control is losing in this country. Since the
mid-eighties, gun rights have slowly begun to pick up speed with the
vast majority of states adopting more lenient gun control laws and
passing concealed carry legislation. The gun ban movement has lost one
Supreme Court fight (Heller) and is on the verge of losing another
(McDonald). Reports are in from all over the country that concealed
carry licenses are being issued at record rates. Ohio, for example,
issued more licenses in 2009 than it did during the first year the
program was enacted back in 2004. Now that the American Public has seen
through one set of lies it is time for another. In the past, most of the
effort has focused on blaming the gun for the actions of the person, now
they are going all out to demonize gun owners themselves. The latest
attempt is by the Violence Policy Center who has done "research" and is
keeping a tally of all stories they can find where a person with a
concealed handgun license has killed someone. Currently, they claim a
number of 151 deaths since 2007... (Mr. White fails to discuss the fact
that VPC attempts to list justifiable homicides by permittees as
criminal homicides even if the permittee is never convicted of a crime.)
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Demonizing--gun-owners
---
Dealing with "No Guns" Signs: I needed to buy a new car. I knew what I
wanted; it was just a matter of what dealership to buy from. The one
most convenient to me was posted "no guns." So I had planned to buy
elsewhere and send them one of our "No Guns = No Money" cards. But I
decided it would be much better if I could just talk them into
un-posting their business. I have talked many businesses into removing
the "no guns" signs. It's generally easy. I ask for the owner or manager
and politely ask them why they posted. Sometimes I ask what effect the
signs will have on criminals, on law enforcement, or on other customers.
I don't "tell" them to remove their signs. I ask them questions to get
them to think about the effect of posting the signs. No one wants a
shootout in their store. No one wants their employees endangered. No one
wants to be targeted by a criminal. No one wants to turn away customers.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7179
---
22 Minutes for a Concealed Pistol License: On a cool morning in the
epicenter of Left Coast liberalism, I went looking for what it takes to
pack a little heat. Although the NRA held its annual meeting here in
1997, the Emerald City's image is more often associated with
Birkenstocks than Glocks... But I know for a fact that when I applied
for my Washington State Concealed Pistol License, I had never fired a
revolver or semiautomatic handgun of any caliber. Not once. In fact, I
had never even held a loaded pistol in my hands. And I had never taken a
minute of formal firearms training. The state of Washington cared
nothing about this when it came to issuing me a license to carry
anything from a .22 revolver in my jacket pocket to a .50-caliber Desert
Eagle in my waistband. The state also had no interest in whether or not
I own a gun... (Perhaps more to the point would be why Washington, whose
1889 guarantee that "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." was copied,
with the exception of two commas, by Arizona 23 years later, should even
require a license to conceal a handgun. If anyone knows how to contact
Mr. Stuckey, please tell him that I will be happy to teach him a lot
more than simply how to load his handgun.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839541/ns/us_news-life/
---
Compromise Shall-Issue Bill in Iowa: Sheriffs would no longer have
nearly unlimited discretion to deny an Iowan a permit to carry a
concealed weapon under a last-minute proposal before state legislators.
Iowa would go from a "may issue" state, meaning sheriffs may issue a
permit but can deny any person for any reason, to a "shall issue" state,
where they could deny a permit for only a limited number of reasons.
It's what gun advocates have pushed hard for all session, but not all
are happy with the compromise bill because they don't think it's
progressive enough. Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, negotiated the
compromise proposal he thinks will standardize how permits are issued in
all 99 counties, and give sheriffs better guidelines... Gun rights
activist Roger Burdette of Iowa Carry said today he is pleased that this
legislation would at least take steps forward. "We thought this was to
be completely lost," he said. Burdette added: "This is going to help
Iowans overall, especially in counties where it has been difficult to
impossible to get a permit due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the
current law." But Aaron Dorr of Iowa Gun Owners said: "We're not
pleased." ...Specifically, Dorr opposes a provision that says sheriffs
could deny a permit to carry a concealed weapon cause if there's
probable cause, based on documentation of past actions, that a person is
"likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently or in such a manner as
would endanger the person's self or others." Dorr said: "The idea that
law enforcement has the option to look into the future and see if
someone will commit a crime with a weapon in the future seems very
dangerous," Dorr said... (It's not clear from this article which
organization is affiliated with the NRA, which fielded a more
restrictive bill after a more liberal one had already been introduced.)
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/03/26/shall-issue-gun-bill-makes-last-minute-progress-in-iowa-legislature/
---
Acquitted Phoenix Gun Dealer Fights Back: A Phoenix gun dealer accused
of conducting "straw purchase" trafficking of guns that ended up in
Mexican drug cartel hands is fighting back. X-Caliber Guns owner George
Iknadosian has filed a lawsuit against a Phoenix police officer, the
city of Phoenix, the Arizona Attorney General and the state of Arizona
after being "acquitted of 21 counts, including forgery, fraud, and
assisting a criminal syndicate... A judge dismissed the criminal case
against Iknadosian in 2009 and ordered all of his seized property to be
returned..." ..." [Arizona Attorney General] Goddard, who apparently
plans on running for governor, used the case to portray himself as tough
on both the drug cartels and rogue gun dealers. Goddard's also been
interested in cooperating as much as possible with Mexican officials..."
In a political move that prosecutors usually find abhorrent, Goddard did
indeed crucify the gun dealer publicly before the trial. I trust Arizona
gun owners will remember that when Mr. Goddard seeks to increase his
power and reach over their rights and their lives?
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d25-Was-there-a-political-motive-in-Phoenix-gun-dealer-prosecution
---
More on ATK and Military Brass: ...Basically, ATK/Alliant Techsystems, a
private company with huge government munitions contracts, offers
military installation commanders the option of selling the used
cartridge cases directly to ATK, allowing ATK to destroy the brass right
on-site, using portable shredders. The shredded brass is, as mentioned
earlier, worth only about a quarter the value of intact, once-fired
cartridge cases. The reason installation commanders accept the deal
anyway, despite it being such a ripoff to taxpayers, is that the
proceeds go directly to that military installation's discretionary fund,
rather than into the DoD budget. Particularly offensive is the fact that
in brochures making the sales pitch to base commanders (here's an
overview of the program, and here's one specifically for Ft. Irwin, CA -
both pdf files), one of the selling points used in advocating this
approach is the very fact that the used cartridge cases will never be
available on the civilian market... (There's a basic fallacy in ATK's
response [
http://www.atk.com/ContactUs/contactus_corporate.asp] - once
the brass has been demilled, it can't be reloaded. Note that the ATK
link will allow you to e-mail ATK with your thoughts.)
http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Used-military-cartridge-brass-once-again-being-destroyedrobbing-shooters-taxpayers
---
No Jail Time for Arenas: Suspended Washington Wizards basketball star
Gilbert Arenas was sentenced to two years of supervised probation and 30
days in a halfway house today at the D.C. Superior Court. Arenas must
also pay a fine of $5,000 and perform 400 hours of community service.
Superior Court Judge Robert Morin said specifically that the community
service could not be with a basketball clinic. The judge suspended a
longer sentence of 18 months, plus three years of supervised release.
Arenas pleaded guilty in January to one felony count of carrying a
pistol without a license...
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/no-jail-time-for-gilbert-arenas.html
---
Oops, Wrong House: A female intruder learned a painful lesson in
Rhawnhurst [Philadelphia PA] yesterday: Never wake a sleeping
firefighter. Shortly before 12:30 p.m., police said, the burglar forced
her way into a handsome corner house on Hoffnagle Street near Frontenac.
The property was the home of Deputy Fire Chief Robert Wilkins, who was
apparently sleeping on the second floor when the woman entered. Awakened
by the noise, Wilkins partially made his way downstairs when he spotted
the intruder and fired three shots, police said. The woman, who was not
identified by police, was wounded in the leg and abdomen. She was
admitted to Aria Health's Torresdale campus in critical condition, cops
said...
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/89250962.html
---
Tangentially Related: The Obama administration's second choice to lead
the Transportation Security Administration withdrew from consideration
Friday, days after senators questioned his business and personal
dealings as a military contractor who provided services ranging from
Iraq war interrogators to private guards at the White House... Obama's
previous nominee, Los Angeles airport police executive Errol Southers,
withdrew from consideration in January. He blamed stalling tactics by
Republicans opposed to extending collective bargaining rights to TSA
employees, but his withdrawal also followed disclosures that he gave
Congress and the White House misleading information about incidents two
decades ago...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/27/AR2010032705855.html?hpid=topnews
--
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
