Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Another episode of “Their back…”

August 20, 2010

The forces of anti freedom and liberty are back yet again pursuing their ultimate goal of submission of the masses to their agenda.

Read it here.

The shear stupidity of these people just never fails to astound those that think in a rational manner.

WEIS: It’s just common sense legislation. I don’t see how anyone could say this is restrictive when we’re simply asking for a background check if you’re going to buy a weapon. This is pretty simple to understand.

Thirty-three states, including Indiana, allow private dealers to sell guns to anyone without a background check.

They answer their own statement. There is a reason that thirty-three states do not agree. They also lie because if it is at a gun show, you have to be approved to exercise a “right.” This is about the outlawing of guns, and especially private sales or gifts. Hell, as it already is, I can’t “give” a firearm to my grandson legally…

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

NRA sells out the people of America:Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

June 16, 2010

After spending close to half an hour on hold I was finally able to speak to an NRA rep. at NRA / ILA. I received the usual lip service, and was told that my comments would be passed on…What follows is the limp wristed defense of their actions that landed in my email inbox this morning. This is just another example of the NRA selling out, again…

Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

And this is what GOA has to say about this issue;

House Democrats Close to Reinstituting Penalties for Criticizing Congress
— Help GOA get other pro-gun groups on board in this fight

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

We alerted you last week to the very dangerous DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), where liberal House Democrats are trying to gag their political opponents.

Well, there have been some late-breaking developments in the fight to kill this bill, but you’re not going to believe what’s happening.  This is what Politico.com reported yesterday:

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

So if the NRA gets an exemption for itself, it will not oppose the anti-freedom DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).  This legislation is designed to overturn major parts of the recent Supreme Court decision which restored the ability of groups like GOA to freely criticize elected officials during a campaign.

But the NRA would no longer oppose the bill once they’ve won an exemption for themselves.  As reported by Politico.com:

The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.

Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.

The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.

In addition to benefiting the NRA, this “exemption” amendment will benefit Blue Dog Democrats who will be given a green light to support the Obama-Pelosi backed bill:

Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”

But here’s the rub, the special exemption amendment will ONLY benefit the NRA and no other groups whatsoever.  It will leave all other groups who are currently in Obama’s crosshairs dangling in the wind:

The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups [like Gun Owners of America].

We are in a political war, and our opponents are trying to change the rules of the game by gagging those groups that are their political enemies.  Some might say that the requirement to disclose our membership is not a gag rule, but it most certainly is.  Gun Owners of America will NOT do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our members!

Gun owners know the dangers of being registered, as it has often proven to be the first step towards gun confiscation — which, by the way, is why it’s lamentable that the management of the NRA is selling out its members for the proverbial bowl of pottage.  (Go to http://tinyurl.com/2uw9sm9 to see what a leading Capitol Hill blog has written about this sell-out.)

We’re positive that regular members of the NRA would never want this to happen — where all the other pro-gun organizations (like GOA) that are fighting to protect our rights would be gagged, while special favors are cut for one group in particular.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with NRA and all the other pro-gun groups when they are fighting to defend our Second Amendment freedoms.  We all have to stick together if we are going to win these battles.

We’re not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters… but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and we’re positive that the NRA membership would not be happy with it.  This cannot stand!

ACTION: Please do everything you can to kill this dangerous DISCLOSE Act legislation (HR 5175).  Here’s what you can do:

1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and urge them to oppose this legislation and to rate any congressman who votes in favor of HR 5175 as having cast an ANTI-GUN vote.  Urge them not to sell out our constitutional freedoms just because they can get an exemption for themselves.

3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights.  You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to this new threat.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

There are reports that a deal may be cut to exempt one large organization from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act.  This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress’ reputation to unprecedented depths.

On the Senate side, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which is aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act.  “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else,” McConnell said.

“Just as it wasn’t the Democrats’ money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn’t theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball — it’s a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.

How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members.  The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.

Vote no on HR 5175.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Wyoming, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

MFFA: Feds: States’ growing gun-rights movement a threat

May 21, 2010

It appears that the Federal government is worried about the various states that have decided that enough is enough. Federal oppression has been going on for decades, if not longer, and it is high time that something was done about it.

While MFFA is about firearms it is really about everything that the Federal government has been doing under the authority of a terribly warped interpretation of the Constitution, and simply ignoring the Bill of Rights.

The federal government is arguing in a gun-rights case pending in federal court in Montana that state plans to exempt in-state guns from various federal requirements themselves make the laws void, because the growing movement certainly would impact “interstate commerce.”

The government continues to argue to the court that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution should be the guiding rule for the coming decision. The argument plays down the significance of both the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 10th Amendment provision that reserves to states all prerogatives not specifically granted the federal government in the Constitution.

Full Story Here

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

NRA CONVENTION REPORT

May 18, 2010

I do indeed agree with much of what Mr. Kopel says in what follows. However? He leaves much of the story out.

The NRA’s annual members meeting was held last weekend, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Since I’ve been going to these events for the last two decades, I’d like to offer a report on how the Convention has changed over the years, and some thoughts about the NRA’s past and present.

First of all, the annual meeting grown from “large” to “enormous.” This year’s convention drew 72,128 NRA members. It’s now so big that relatively few US cities have convention facilities that can accommodate it. The 2010 meeting was the largest event ever held in the city of Charlotte, and the people of Charlotte were very welcoming, and the facilities were well-run.

The Exhibit Hall, where manufacturers of firearms, hunting gear, and related accessories show off their products to consumers, was a three mile walk, if you went through each row. The shooting industry’s annual trade show (SHOT — Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades) is even bigger, but you have to be a firearms retailer, or otherwise engaged in the firearms business, in order to be able to attend SHOT. So for most persons, the NRA exhibit hall is the best opportunity ever to examine products close up, talk to manufacturer’s representatives, and so on. As has become the norm in recent years, the exhibit hall was so full most of the day Saturday that it was difficult to walk at more than a slow space. (Friday and Sunday were easier.)

Traditionally, the highlight (at least for me) has been the annual members’ banquet on Saturday evening. Last year in Phoenix, the banquet set the record as “the largest meal ever served in the state of Arizona.” Even then, there were many people who wanted to attend, but could not get tickets. So this year, the banquet was replaced by an evening event at the nearby basketball arena (the Time-Warner Cable Center), which drew 11,754 to hear a Charlie Daniels concert, plus speeches by Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, as well as by NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.

A notable addition in recent years is the Friday afternoon “Celebration of American Values” leadership forum. This too took place at the basketball arena. As Jim Geraghty of National Review Online reported, the event now serves as a cattle call for politicians who may have national ambitions.  Speakers this year included Sarah Palin, John Thune, Haley Barbour, and Mike Pence, plus North Carolina Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler. The CAV is a relatively recent addition to the Annual Meeting. Because the Saturday banquet can only accommodate one or two headline speakers, the CAV provides NRA with an additional opportunity to build relationships with leading political figures.

New media were present, with NRA staff twittering the convention for the first time, plus the now-established events for the dozens of “gun bloggers” who attend. The most prominent “new media” at the convention was NRA News, the NRA’s satellite radio program which airs three hours every weekday on Sirius (and, starting today, also on XM) as well as on the Internet. NRA News had a studio on the convention floor, and broadcast nearly round the clock over the weekend. [For NRA News video of the weekend’s speeches, go the NRA News website, and then look in the video archives for May 14 or 15.]

The Continuing Legal Education seminar at the Annual Meeting has been in operation for about a decade and half, a Friday program that provides hundreds of lawyers with eight hours of low-cost CLE, and greatly helps to expand the number of lawyers who have the knowledge to handle firearms cases–whether the case is an administrative law issue for a licensed firearms dealer, or a constitutional defense.

Among the interesting presenters at the CLE was Stephen Halbrook, discussing his draft article for the Northeastern Law Review symposium, in which he commented on this passage in Chicago’s brief (p. 19, n. 9) in McDonald: incorporation “would raise questions whether a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois) must be allowed elsewhere, precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

Stated another way, Chicago wants the legal option to ban ordinary rifles used for hunting deer and other big game. Rifles which, by the way, are currently owned by Chicago residents, and are lawfully used by them for hunting and target shooting. Chicago’s argument certainly refutes the notion that nobody in the gun control movement wishes to ban hunting long guns.

Throughout the three days of the convention, there are seminars on all kinds of topics, from hunting to self-defense to firearms history. The one I attended was Sniper: Myths and the Media & Winning the Sniping War in Iraq. Major John Plaster gave a very interesting presentation on the sniper war in Iraq from 2004 to 2008, perhaps the most extended sniper conflict in the history of warfare. He explained how the Iraqi insurgents nearly won that conflict in 2005-06, and how the U.S. forces finally turned the tide by changing their tactics, and bringing in substantial additional resources, including forensics teams who could lift fingerprints from recovered insurgent guns.

But the main reason I went was for the other speaker, Stephen Hunter, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Now retired from newspapers, Hunter is a novelist, and in his most recent mystery-adventure novel, I, Sniper, I am a very minor character. It’s the first time I have ever appeared in a novel, so like a Pirandello character in search of his author, I made sure to say hello to him, and get him to sign my book.

In sum, the NRA Annual Meeting showcased an organization that is strong and getting stronger, largely because of its increasing ability to mobilize the grassroots. Twentyfive years ago, if you joined the NRA, you got a monthly magazine, plus direct mail requests for additional donations, and occasional legislative alerts. Now, the NRA is in touch with its members daily (at least the members who want daily updates) via NRA News, the website, e-mails, blogs, and so on. As the Annual Meeting continues to scale up, the organizers are doing a solid job of giving members the opportunity not only to be part of very large crowds, but also to participate in smaller events with one-on-one conversations.

Throughout the meeting, at event after event, the key word was not “rifle” or “gun.” In Charlotte, as at every convention for at least the last ten years, the word was “American.” This is reflected in part in the genuine veneration which the NRA, at all levels, has for the American armed forces. The NRA membership and staff have a high proportion of military veterans, and at any convention event, a call-out to the active duty soldiers typically leads to a standing ovation.

But more broadly, the NRA considers itself the embodiment of American patriotism, as the direct descendant of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. This isn’t a point about constitutional originalism, but it is a point about four million people who have never thought that it was uncool to be patriotic, and who very much see themselves as carrying forward the sacred flame of liberty that was lit in 1776, was fought for on the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal, and which is based on eternal truth.

Like any social and political movement, the NRA at times defines itself as oppositional–as resisting “the anti-gun mainstream media,” or Bill Clinton, or Michael Bloomberg. But the National Rifle Association of America is incapable of being oppositional to America itself, or of imagining itself to be countercultural. Founded in 1871 by Union army officers, and led in its early days by bipartisan Union Generals (such as retired U.S. President U.S. Grant, a Republican; and Winfield Scott Hancock, “the hero of Gettysburg” and the 1884 Democratic presidential nominee), the NRA has always defined itself as the mainstream of America. Probably the only civic organization whose membership has included more U.S. Presidents than the NRA is the Boy Scouts–and that’s because the Boy Scouts make every U.S. President into their honorary President. In short, Whig history is alive and well at the NRA, and based on the present and past successes of NRA in shaping American culture as a gun culture, that view of history cannot be said to be inaccurate.

SOURCE

And what of the NRA’s stance supporting ex post facto law? Just to name one utter failure…

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Puerto Rico Statehood, another threat to freedom in Wyoming

May 4, 2010

Reprinted with permission. Please follow the link for comments that are there.

Line in the Sand
Image: A.Bouchard

The newest “line in the sand” has been drawn, a Washington D.C. hostile takeover of your freedoms in the form of a push to make Puerto Rico a part of the Federal Union.

From the news – House Approves Puerto Rico Statehood Measure, “The House voted Thursday to allow Puerto Ricans to change the island’s commonwealth status, in what critics are saying is a backdoor attempt to force Puerto Ricans into choosing U.S. statehood…which passed 223-169 and now must be taken up by the Senate, would introduce a two-step ballot measure for Puerto Rico to decide if its residents want to change their current relationship with the United States”.

This is happening despite the incompatibility of the Constitution of this unincorporated U.S Territory, specifically the right to keep and bear arms. Unlike our Republic (a nation of Constitutional laws), Puerto Rico by a review of their Constitution and the actions of their Parliament, Puerto Rico is a Democracy (of men). Ever wondered the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, well the answers are right here. Just read on…

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY

Puerto Rico’s Constitution states it is a Democracy-
Section 19. The foregoing enumeration of rights shall not be construed restrictively nor does it contemplate the exclusion of other rights not specifically mentioned which belong to the people in a democracy. The power of the Legislative Assembly to enact laws for the protection of the life, health and general welfare of the people shall likewise not be construed restrictively.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution clearly defines the form of government as Republic-
97-1-007 – Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Also to be noted there is no mention of the “right to keep and bear arms” in the Puerto Rican Constitution, but the Wyoming Constitution states this-
97-1-024 – The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Motive – If Puerto Rico is forced into Statehood by Congress they will have a new partner to impose strict gun control in the U.S. and this backdoor attempt is just another step toward full federal control.

Nothing new here! In fact, similarly states like New York and California have become enemies to liberty in Wyoming by imposing their will in our state on issues such as land, wildlife and mining. More recently, legislation has been introduced in Washington that could alter “Water Rights” in Wyoming forever.

Obama started to circle the wagons while campaigning in Puerto Rico in 2008, as you will see in this video.

With the recently passed HealthCare Mandate and the coming Value Added Tax (VAT) and ”Cap and Trade”, it should be even more alarming that – this combined with new found allies supporting full “gun control”…Well, I believe you see the big picture.

A summary of Puerto Rico’s GUN CONTROL-

  • “FULL GUN REGISTRATION” scheme in place, “Any legal firearm…shall be registered in the registry of weapons”. You notice “legal firearm”? Once again criminals are exempt, only law abiding citizens must ask permission and register their firearms.
  • Licensing, you must ask the Government to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition.
  • Clinton style weapons ban in full force.
  • The government has the ability to seize weapons as they see fit.
  • Strict ammo purchase and possession scheme, one cannot possess ammunition for which you do not have a licensed firearm.
  • If you fail to license all of your activities including “target shooting” you are guilty of a felony and will be imprisoned.
  • BUT OF COURSE, in Puerto Rico…ALL Government officials (even the Parliament) can have special privileges to carry and possess firearms.

The Puerto Rican Government stated this about the New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico in 2000 – “By enacting this law, the State exercised its inherent power of regulation”.

It is this very thing that concerned the Founders as well as the Wyoming Legislature in 1889, “a government that CAN and WILL push to take away your inalienable rights”.

By contrast the Wyoming Constitution says this-
97-1-001 – All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

I will leave you with this last thought – It has never been so important to be a “vested” member in WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners.

Research sources:
Wyoming Constitution
New Weapons Act of Puerto Rico 2000
Amendments in 2002
Puerto Rico Constitution

Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization. Anthony is also the –  Cheyenne Government Examiner.

WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 8 Comments »

Mayor Daley Insults America

May 1, 2010

Fearful that America’s Supreme Court will soon strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, frustrated by the Illinois legislature’s rejection of his anti-gun agenda, and repudiated by American courts and legislatures over his plan to sue federally licensed manufacturers and dealers of firearms for third-party crimes, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) is showing contempt for his own country’s and state’s institutions, by seeking a foreign entity to enforce his anti-gun agenda against the American people.

This week, Daley called for “redress against the gun industry” in the World Court, in The Hague, Netherlands.  Forgetting or not caring who his constituents are, Daley blurted “This is coming from international mayors.  They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America.’”

Daley’s global gun control fantasy received the endorsement of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D), whose enthusiasm for international law is apparently matched by his novel interpretation of the United States Constitution.  “I love the Second Amendment,” Nutter recently said, but “I have a First Amendment right not to be shot.”  Nutter’s utterly ignorant statement proves that in our country, you can be elected to public office while knowing remarkably little about the Bill of Rights.  Nutter acknowledged that the Daley’s scheme is a “long shot.”  But, he said, “you never know until you try,” adding “The political establishment in many state capitals—and certainly in Washington [is] so deathly afraid of the NRA that people cannot make the right decision for their own constituents.”

And that’s not the only outrageous proposal put for forth by Chicago politicians of late.  Illinois State Representatives John Fritchey (D) and LaShawn Ford (D) have decided that the best way to battle crime in “gun-free” Chicago is to militarize the city.  The two legislators recently called on Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D), Mayor Daley, and Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis to bring in the National Guard in an effort to thwart crime.

So in a city that is quickly starting to sound more like a banana republic, law-abiding citizens are denied the means to defend themselves, while the best suggestion anti-gun lawmakers can come up with to address crime is to emasculate the Chicago police department, and bring in soldiers to occupy the city and patrol the streets!

It’s a sad day in America when lawmakers would rather turn to National Guard patrols of city streets than to allow law-abiding citizens the choice to legally own and carry firearms for self-defense.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…

March 28, 2010

Yet another Federal Judge chooses to ignore the facts… Read on.

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA’s case challenging D.C.’s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller’s assertion that D.C.’s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court “did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court’s upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.’s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a “reasonableness test,” which would “require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had ‘articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,’ and the measure did ‘not interfere with the “core right” the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'”

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.’s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an “intermediate scrutiny” level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws “implicate the core Second Amendment right” and, if they do, whether they are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”

Urbina agreed that D.C.’s firearm registration scheme implicates the “core Second Amendment right,” which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court “suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter,” and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the “factual” claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are in “common use,” the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina’s decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Brady Campaign Continues Slide Into Irrelevancy

March 20, 2010

It sure seems as though the hoplophobe’s have degenerated into what we in the medical field call suicidal  ideation. I mean really?

Once many years ago, while down at Denver General Hospital, some high power super Doc proceeded to chew on my butt because I was reading a hunting magazine in the driveway to the Emergency Department and it had, OH MY GOD!, a picture of a gun on the cover!

That friends, is a person that suffers from mental illness. As noted above… Anyways, right about then a D.G. crew brought in a bad guy that had a few well deserved holes in him. Seems a Denver Cop did what Cops do when confronted with deadly force. But like the better than thou Super Doc said; “Guns are only for killing and never do anyone any good!” Yeah… Right Doc!

But I digress, as usual… read on.

The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group’s two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks.

This year, they’ve insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They’ve given the states their worst “Brady grades” ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they’ve badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.

This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world’s most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group’s credibility by claiming “The evidence is overwhelming that the ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been ‘associated with uniform increases in crime.'”

If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There’s “evidence,” all right, and it’s certainly “overwhelming.” Today, there are 36 states with “shall issue” laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in “shall issue” states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don’t even require a permit to carry concealed.

“Uniform increases in crime”? The nation’s violent crime rate is at a 35-year low.

Since adopting “shall issue” laws, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia have had decreases in violent crime ranging from 26 to 53 percent.

Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady’s petition and $1.70 will get you …

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

‘The Palladium of Liberties’

March 5, 2010

Second Amendment — Still ‘The Palladium of Liberties’

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison

James Madison’s words regarding the “ultimate authority” for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In recent decades, the “enterprises of ambition” and “usurpation and arbitrary power” among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law. This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.

This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.

In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case “may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table,” should “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home.”

One might only hope!

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago’s onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution’s plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.

Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.

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…

Mr. McDonald’s lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) is grounds for overturning Chicago’s gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.

Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.”

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?“

Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.

Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the “right to keep and bear arms” is “necessary,” more so than just important, to a “free state.”

But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the “despotic branch,” as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.

Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty — but that’s the way the game is played today.

Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don’t require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.

Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, “The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind…”

No, they should not.

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: “To support and defend our Constitution,” as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people “to keep and bear arms.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

(To submit reader comments click here.)

*****

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Well stated sir, as always.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

What’s that Smell?

December 23, 2009

Dave Kopel’s latest newsletter (see the link on the blog roll) unloads yet again with logic and reason. Bits and snips, with links below.

To subscribe to this free e-mail newsletter, please send a request to:
kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com

Aiming for Liberty

David Kopel
Merril Press
December 4, 2009
http://www.amazon.com/Aiming-LIberty-Present-Freedom-Self-Defense/dp/0936783583/davekopel-20/
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Aiming-for-Liberty/David-B-Kopel/e/9780936783581/?itm=2

Videocast on Aiming for Liberty

Dave Kopel with Jon Caldara
Independent Thinking, KBPI 12, Denver
November 27, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EB5652D760AC2EAB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJgIjxmFdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mymokhfqhJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud36zktV3F8
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EB5652D760AC2EAB

Dave and Independence Institute President and program host Jon Caldara discuss his new book on this KBPI television broadcast, now available on YouTube. Part 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJgIjxmFdQ, Part 2, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mymokhfqhJk and Part 3, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud36zktV3F8. The playlist with all three is here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EB5652D760AC2EAB

New Law Review Articles by Kopel

The Right to Arms in the Living Constitution

David B. Kopel
Cardozo Law Review de Novo, Forthcoming; U. Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-34
December 17, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1524103

“This Article presents a brief history of the Second Amendment as part of the living Constitution. From the Early Republic through the present, the American public has always understood the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a right to own firearms for self-defense. That view has been in accordance with �lite legal opinion, except for a period in part of the twentieth century.”

The Keystone of the Second Amendment: Quakers, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Questionable Scholarship of Nathan Kozuskanich

David B. Kopel with Clayton E. Cramer
Widener Law Journal, Vol. 19, 2010, forthcoming
December 19, 2009
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1502925

Kopel and Cramer examine the historical underpinnings of historian Nathan Kozuskanich’s claim that the right to arms in the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution only guaranteed a right to serve in the commonwealth’s militia.

Kopel on the Health Bill

Health Bill and Gun Ownership

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 24, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/24/health-bill-and-gun-ownership/

Dave responds to a putative rebutal of his concerns that the Government’s expanded role in health care may lead to ‘wellness programs’ that preclude firearms ownership.

Is the Senate health plan anti-gun?

Susan Ferrechio
The Washington Examiner
November 24, 2009
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/71875287.html

Ferrechio’s article includes Dave’s concern that a government putting itself in charge of people’s health may decides that habits such as firearms ownership are prohibitively expensive.

What’s that Smell?

Dave Kopel
America’s 1st Freedom
December, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/ACORN.htm

“Nearly everyone has heard of the corruption-plagued organization ACORN. Yet many gun owners are unaware of the organization’s strong anti-gun activities and ties.”

Missouri Court Upholds Statute Against Gun Possession While Intoxicated

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 20, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/20/missouri-court-uphelds-statute-against-gun-possession-while-intoxicated/

“In the 1979 case People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Colorado dealt with a similar statute. The ruled that the statute only applied to ‘actual or physical control.’ So if a person is drunk in his living room, and owns a gun which is stored in his downstairs closet, the statute would not apply. The Missouri decision is consistent with the Colorado standard, since Richard actually was possessing the handgun.”

Bloggingheads TV on Moses as the essential American hero

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 10, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ybn3ton

Dave here agrees with Bruce Feiler’s argument, in an interview on Robert Wright’s BloggingHeadsTV, that Moses is a figure of great interest as an exemplar to some of America’s most influential leaders.

United States v. Skoien

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
November 18, 2009
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/TL1FFWAJ.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The decision refers to Dave’s work on Heller on p.7, note 2.

Another Good Night for the Second Amendment

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 4, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/another-good-night-for-the-second-amendment/

“In sum: A bad night for advocates of gun show restrictions. Another fine night (as were election nights 2006 and 2008) for Democrats with A ratings from NRA. And good news for Second Amendment advocates in blue New Jersey and purple Virginia.”

Will the Arms Trade Treaty Provide Effective Embargos on Human Rights Violators?

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 2, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/02/will-the-arms-trade-treaty-provide-effective-embargos-on-human-rights-violators/

“Thus, the ATT might, at most, lead to more nominal embargos of arms; but nothing in an ATT can have greater force in international law than a Security Council order already does. Accordingly, the ATT will be of little or no use in achieving its purported objective. To the contrary, the ATT may be positively harmful, since it will probably declare a ‘right’ of governments to acquire arms. This ‘right’ could be used to claim that arms embargos outside the ATT system (e.g., unilateral embargos by the US, or the EU) are violations of international law.”

The Most Important Right to Arms Vote of 2009

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 4, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-most-important-right-to-arms-vote-of-2009/

“Repeal of the Canadian registry would, accordingly, be of tremendous global significance. Repeal would also shatter the claim by the Canadian gun prohibition lobby that gun control in Canada is an irreversible ratchet.”

Kopel on McDonald v. Chicago

The Kopel Amicus Brief

Brief Summary of the Kopel Brief

David B. Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/kopel-brief-in-mcdonald-v-chicago/

Here is a brief summary of the complete amicus brief, linked below, that Dave has written for the case of McDonald v. Chicago

Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Et Al.

David B. Kopel
Independence Institute; Denver University, Sturm College of Law
November 22, 2009
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1511425

Here is a link to the full text of Dave’s brief on this important post-Heller case.

McDonald v. Chicago

Dave Kopel with Jon Caldara
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
December 1, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast353.mp3

Kopel and Caldara discuss Dave’s completed amicus brief and the importance of this case.

JoshCasts: Interview with Dave Kopel on McDonald v. Chicago

Dave Kopel with Josh Blackman
Josh Blackman’s Blog
November 23, 2009
http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=2540

Here’s a podcast in which Law Clerk and Blogger-Tweeter Josh Blackman interviews Dave about the McDonald v. Chicago brief.

Dave’s Blogging on the Other Briefs in McDonald v. Chicago

Congressional brief in McDonald v. Chicago

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/congressional-brief-in-mcdonald-v-chicago/

Here is Dave’s reaction to the Congressional brief filed in the McDonald case. “Counsel of Record is former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. Much of the brief recapitulates the lengthy historical record of congressional action (including but not limited to Reconstruction) to protect the individual right to arms from federal or state infringement.”

Academics for the Second Amendment brief in McDonald

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/academics-for-the-second-amendment-brief-in-mcdonald/

“Well before Reconstruction, the Second Amendment was considered to be mainly a guarantee of a right to own and carry guns for personal protection. Back in 1998, I wrote a hundred-page article, The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359, which focused mainly on cases and treatises. Olson/Hardy/Cramer have gone further, and brought forward extensive evidence about the understanding of the public and of elected public officials.”

McDonald amicus: Don’t trust Fairman and Berger

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/mcdonald-amicus-dont-trust-fairman-and-berger/

“Erik S. Jaffe has written a very interesting brief for the CalGuns Foundation. In short, the argument is: ‘Charles Fairman’s and Raoul Berger’s Work on Fourteenth Amendment Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Is Deeply Flawed, Inaccurate, and Should Not Be Relied Upon by this Court.’ ”

Cato brief in McDonald v. Chicago

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/cato-brief-in-mcdonald-v-chicago/

“An outstanding brief, as one might expect. The bulk of the brief (21 pages, comprising Part I) shows that from the Founding Era into through the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, national citizenship was paramount to state citizenship. Part II briefly argues that Slaughterhouse violated canons of constitutional construction such as by interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause to make it nothing more than a reiteration of the Supremacy Clause.”

Institute for Justice brief in McDonald v. Chicago

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 23, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/institute-for-justice-brief-in-mcdonald-v-chicago/

“The most important part of the brief is Part III, which begins: ‘To enslave a class of people requires three basic things: destroy their self-sufficiency, prevent them from fighting back, and silence any opposition.’ The brief then goes on to argue that the the Court should resist suggestions that it hold that the Privileges or Immunities clause makes the first eight amendments applicable against the states, but does nothing else.”

McDonald amicus briefs: Academics, Congress Redux, and California District Attorneys

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
November 25, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/11/25/mcdonald-amicus-briefs-academics-and-congress-redux/

“The new Kates-Ayers brief begins with a survey of the 17th-18th century philosophical view, with which the American Founders agreed, that self-defense was among the most fundamental of all rights, that it was also a duty, and that the right necessarily implied the right to use arms in self-defense.”

Privileges or Immunities Extravaganza

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
December 21, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/12/21/privileges-or-immunities-extravaganza/

“The Question Presented by the Court asked if the bans should be considered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, or under the Privileges or Immunities clause. There’s been plenty of interesting scholarship recently on Privileges or Immunities. Here’s a guide to some of the most important articles.”

More of Dave’s Podcasts on the Case

Interview with Alan Gura

Dave Kopel with Alan Gura
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
December 7, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast358.mp3

Here is Dave’s lengthy (50 minutes) interview with Alan Gura, the lead attorney in the Heller case, now involved in McDonald v. Chicago.

McDonald v. Chicago: Is the 2nd Amendment Incorporated in the 14th Amendment? An Explanation of the Basic Constitutional Issues in the Case.

Dave Kopel with Jon Caldara
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
December 7, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast349.mp3

Dave and Jon Caldara discuss Dave’s early work on his amicus brief, and the issues and precedents at stake in McDonald v. Chicago.

Stephen Halbrook Christmas Special.

Dave Kopel with Stephen Halbrook
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
December 17, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast362.mp3

Kopel interviews Stephen Halbrook, the leading legal defender of the Second Amendment over the last three decades. 53 minutes.

More available at the sidebar link!

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »