Turning the U.S. into Illinois

Ever since Solicitor General Paul Clement submitted the government's amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, stating something along the lines of "Sure, the Second Amendment protects an individual right . . . but," I've been kicking an idea around for a blog post, without having gotten around to posting it. A couple days ago, I learned through War on Guns that the GOA's Larry Pratt had beaten me to the punch.

It's a point that bears repeating, though (and besides, it's probably pure conceit on my part to think that I've ever come up with anything original . . . well, aside from some of my really weird stuff), so here goes.

But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.

"Under the administration's amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be 'constitutional,' even if the Supreme Court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," he continued.

Larry Pratt refers to the fact that here in Illinois, the state constitutional equivalent of the Second Amendment (the equivalent is Article I, Section 22) reads:

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I refer to the "subject only to the police power" part. Chicago Handgun Rights has the details, but the gist of it is that the offending language was tacked onto Illinois' equivalent of the Second Amendment in a 1970 state constitutional convention, with plenty of political muscle for doing so coming from Chicago's original Mayor Richard Daley (the apple, clearly, has not fallen far from the tree).

What "subject only to the police power" does, basically, is to take the teeth out of the right to keep and bear arms. It turns the "shall not be infringed" into "shall not be infringed unless we decide to go ahead and infringe it." Obviously, there's no real point in a right that the government can limit at will.

The Department of Justice brief, in arguing that the government must only meet a standard of "reasonable" to justify a gun law's Constitutionality under the Second Amendment (rather than the strict scrutiny standard of "compelling state interest"), has basically tried, in effect, to copy Illinois' "subject only to the police power" language into the Second Amendment.

Funny, I don't know how I missed that alteration to the Constitution (which is generally kind of tough to do on the sly).

To those for whom gun rights are not central, chew on this: if the DoJ's wishes are upheld by SCOTUS, a right protected by the Bill of Rights can be trampled simply because the government says it's "reasonable" to do so. If too many criminals are getting off because illegally obtained evidence violates their Fourth Amendment rights, perhaps it's time to declare that it's "reasonable" to say the Fourth Amendment doesn't really mean what it says. "Due process" under the Fifth Amendment making it too hard to prosecute criminals? No problem--just say that it's "reasonable" to violate it. Don't complain too loudly about it either, or it might be found "reasonable" to shut you up, First Amendment notwithstanding.

The "Vote Freedom First" President's Department of Justice is arguing, in effect, that We The People have the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights only until it's "reasonable" to strip them from us. Behold the Bill of Privileges, courtesy of "Vot[ing] Freedom First."

Some of us are well past 'rankled'

A Washington Post article today says that some gun rights activists (although the article uses the somewhat dismissive term of "gun enthusiasts"--as if the palladium of liberty were a mere hobby) are "rankled" about the Bush administration's position on the District of Columbia v. Heller case, as outlined in the amicus brief submitted by solicitor general Paul Clement.

The government's brief, filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement just hours before the court's deadline Jan. 11, endorses the view that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to gun ownership, a finding long sought by gun rights activists.

But it also said an appeals court used the wrong standard when it struck down the District's ban on private handgun ownership, and it urged the Supreme Court to return the case to the lower court for review.

What makes that more than "ranklesome" is the fact that the administration is claiming that a law regulating a Constitutionally protected fundamental human right--one that shall not be infringed--be subjected to anything less than the strictest scrutiny. The article quotes David Kopel summing up the position of gun rights advocates quite nicely.

David B. Kopel, an associate policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that President Bush was elected in part because of the passion of gun rights activists and that "the citizen activists would never have spent all those hours volunteering for a candidate whose position on the constitutionality of a handgun ban was 'maybe.' "

But fear not! Not everyone is "rankled"--some are quite pleased.

On the other side, Sanford Levinson, a liberal constitutional scholar at the University of Texas who believes that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, called the administration's position "a gift to the Democratic Party" and urged his party's presidential candidates to embrace it.

The view that the amendment guarantees gun ownership subject to reasonable government restrictions is one that most voters would endorse, Levinson said. In a debate last week in Nevada, all three major Democratic candidates pledged their fealty to the Second Amendment -- "People have a right to bear arms," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said -- although none mentioned the District's handgun ban.

The D.C. legal team is also "gratified," and the Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke "salutes" the administration for arguing that shall not be infringed actually means that . . . the government can infringe it whenever it suits them.

Yesterday, by the way, War on Guns spotted this . . . curious explanation from the Heritage Foundation of why we shouldn't be so "rankled."

Those who understood the department's dual obligations--to defend the Constitution and also to preserve federal power and federal statutes where possible--knew that some attempt at baby-splitting was likely. Serious originalists are correct that the government's brief erred in the line it tried to draw and went unreasonably far in its attempt to preserve government power, but what the government concedes is far more important. And like the original solution proposed by King Solomon, the Solicitor General's solution so threatens the viability of the individual right that it will be quickly rejected by anyone who cherishes such rights.

So if I'm following that correctly, the Heritage Foundation acknowledges that the DoJ's advocacy of an application of a standard of less than strict scrutiny of laws regulating the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is wrong, but the argument is made so ineffectively that we shouldn't worry about it.

Oh, well that's a relief--as long as the aspiring tyrants argue their case for tyranny incompetently, it's not a problem.

Why, then, am I still "rankled" enough to be on board with this?

Will 'Maximum Mike' be going north now?

I've talked about efforts to blame "weak U.S. gun laws" for violence in Mexico (and again here). Now it seems that apparently, violence in Canada is also our fault.

With two Toronto bystanders shot dead in one week, the New Democrats are calling for a cross-border political summit to tackle "the ongoing crisis" of illegal handguns crossing into Canada.

Note that the "ongoing crisis" isn't the preponderance of violent thugs in Toronto, but "illegal handguns crossing into Canada."

"We need a cross-border summit," said Layton, "to develop an action plan to stop illegal guns from coming across the border."

Happily, the BATFE just loves "cross-border summits". Let's just give the Canadians some eTrace terminals--if we're going to let the BATFE have a de facto (illegal) gun registry, why not let any country who is interested have access to it?

And let us not forget the dreaded "gun show loophole":

A cross-border summit on gun control should address the loose identity checks at some big gun shows in the U.S., Comartin added, where gun dealers skirt state laws restricting sales to residents of that state. Such gun shows often provide biker gangs with the illegal handguns that end up on Canadian streets, he said.

By the way, the Joe Comartin quoted above is described in the article as an NDP (New Democratic Party) "justice critic"--does that mean that his job is to criticize justice? I suppose that with one who doesn't like justice, it's not too surprising that he's no big fan of liberty, either.

Second Amendment Violation Amnesty Act of 2008

I am what some undoubtedly consider a gun rights "extremist" (or would be, were I significant enough to be worthy of notice). That's an appellation that doesn't particularly disturb me, but even so, I do not wish to be seen as one with whom it is impossible to reason. In that spirit, I propose throwing a bone to the other side ("the other side" being the citizen disarmament advocates).

What I have in mind is federal legislation that would grant amnesty to officials (elected or not, whether in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch) and agents of government (at any level) from prosecution under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242,"Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law," for violation of American citizens' Second Amendment rights. Section 242 reads, in part:

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

The imposition and enforcement of laws that violate Second Amendment rights would clearly fall under the purview of this statute--and the penalties are not insignificant.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

With all the deaths that have resulted from violence inflicted on citizens placed under a condition of government mandated defenselessness (unconstitutionally mandated defenselessness), such an amnesty should be seen by a great many officials as quite a boon indeed (who could have predicted I would try to save Mayor Daley's life?).

An undeserved boon, I acknowledge, but such is the nature of politics--besides, perhaps it is fear of facing the music that forces these people to cling so desperately to the ridiculous fiction that their efforts to trample a right of the people, a right that shall not be infringed, are not actually a violation of the Second Amendment. Perhaps that fear is what drives the Department of "Justice" (ha!) to claim that the Supreme Court should not overturn Washington D.C.'s draconian gun laws on Second Amendment grounds. Perhaps giving them an out is the way to break the impasse. After all, although most of the folks who read this blog (not that you're out there in overwhelming numbers) know the true purpose of the Second Amendment, I would imagine that the vast majority fervently hope it never comes to that.

That is why I propose the "Second Amendment Violation Amnesty Act of 2008." It's quite beyond me to express it in the convoluted (and inevitably verbose, even by my standards) language of lawyers, but the gist of a summary would be something like this:

Title: A bill to extend amnesty to officials and agents of government who, prior to the effective date of this code, participated in the imposition or enforcement of laws that violated the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and to make that amnesty conditional on the violator's immediate and permanent departure from government service.

For violations after the effective date, of course, all bets would be off.

Meet the new boss (just the same as the old boss)

War on Guns tells us yesterday about Hillary Clinton's "belief in the Second Amendment."

You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms.

Well shucks, Hill--why didn't you say so before?

I want to look at another Hillary quote from the same article:

And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books.

Hmm--that sounds familiar--where could I have heard that before?

Let's see--could it be here?

Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.

Fred Thompson, candidate for U.S. president, and "Second Amendment stalwart"

Or here?

"Until you provide 100% enforcement of the existing laws, (criminals are) going to laugh at you, and ... go about their business."

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association (you know--the "800 lb. gorilla of the gun rights movement")

And, come to think of it, that sounds quite a bit like this:

The country doesn't necessarily need new laws to limit handguns, but it should enforce the laws it has and resist efforts to weaken them, one of the nation's top handgun control advocates said Thursday.

Paul Helmke, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Oh, by the way--there's also this:

It starts with enforcing the law. We need to say loud and clear to somebody, if you’re going to carry a gun illegally, we’re going to arrest you, if you’re going to sell a gun illegally you need to be arrested, and if you commit a crime with a gun there needs to be absolutely [sic] certainty in the law.

[ . . . ]

Saying America is “still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush today called for tougher enforcement of gun laws and a greater emphasis on character education as the way to promote school safety. “Today is the sad anniversary of a terrible tragedy-a tragedy that shattered our sense of safety and security-a tragedy that hit home for every parent and every child and every school in America,” Bush said. “A year later, America is still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush continued. “Strict enforcement of tough laws is important.”

[ . . . ]

I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & juveniles. I’m for enforcing the laws on the books.

George W. Bush, President, United States of America (also known as the "Vote Freedom First" President)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit disturbing that the president of the biggest "gun-control" group, the executive vice president of what claims to be the largest gun rights group, the presidential candidate who might be gun owners' biggest fear, the presidential candidate whom many gun rights activists point to as our greatest hope, and the "vote freedom first" president, all say the same thing?

Of course there is one presidential candidate who will never be heard calling for "enforcement of existing gun laws"--one who, in fact, calls for their repeal. Ah--but I guess I'm forgetting about "the art of the possible," or something.

Freedom to prevail at Virginia gun shows

Just a quick note about some good news from Virginia:

A Virginia House committee on Friday effectively killed for this year an effort to close a major loophole in the state's gun laws that was a priority of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted to indefinitely delay action on a bill that would to require all sellers to conduct background checks on those who want to purchase firearms at gun shows.

That's what I like to see. Take that, Paul Helmke, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, George Bush, and all the rest of you statist pantywaists.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns still can't seduce the presidential candidates

I mentioned about a week and a half ago that Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" coalition was having trouble getting the presidential candidates to notice them and their survey. At that time, every candidate had missed the mayors' original Jan. 2nd deadline, although one (at the time unnamed) candidate had asked for an extension.

None answered the questionnaire that Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition released on Dec. 9 and paid $22,200 to publicize last week in full page newspaper ads in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said no candidate responded by the Jan. 2 deadline; one asked for an extension, so the new deadline is Jan. 14. Post declined to say which candidate wanted more time.

With the extended, Jan. 14th deadline now come and gone, the "mystery candidate" who wanted the extension is now known--but according to New York Daily News blogger Elizabeth Benjamin, he missed the new deadline, as well.

John Edwards had asked for an extension until Monday (that's yesterday [this was written on Tuesday, Jan. 15th], not next week), according to Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post. But the day came and went, and still nothing has been received from the former senator, who is gunning for a win in his native South Carolina to keep his campaign alive.

It would certainly be tricky to come up with a way of appeasing a gaggle of rabidly anti-rights mayors while simultaneously avoiding alienating South Carolina voters (although it may be time for Edwards to consider South Carolina a lost cause for him, anyway).

The next part particularly amuses me.

Ron Paul was the only other candidate to offer his opinion. He submitted a prepared statement on the Second Amendment, which the mayors’ coalition does not consider a sufficient response, Post said.

My guess (and this is only a guess) is that the prepared statement referred to is this. If I am correct about that, I'm not sure what Post means about the response not being "sufficient"--I think the statement makes Dr. Paul's position crystal clear. Perhaps Post meant "not sufficiently tyrannical"--it would certainly be that, by the mayors' standards.

“The more than 250 Republican, Democratic, and Independent mayors who make up the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition are disappointed that none of the people who want to lead this country are paying attention to an issue that kills 12,000 Americans each year," Post told DN City Hall Bureau Chief Kirsten Danis.

Face it, mayors, the candidates don't want anything to do with you because going along with your agenda would be political suicide. What do you suppose that says about what the American people think of that agenda?

By the way, this is only very tangentially related to the rest of this blog post, but while we're on the subject of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," I couldn't help but notice this little tidbit about their financing:

At one point, Mr. Bloomberg said that "as far as I know" the city was paying for the Web site of the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" coalition, which Mr. Bloomberg played a leading role in founding. The coalition has brought significant national attention to Mr. Bloomberg.

So New York City taxpayers are helping to fund Bloomberg's national anti-gun crusade (and potential presidential aspirations?). One might think that with his billions, he'd have the decency to pay for that himself. One would apparently be wrong.

'Maximum Mike' and 'Project Gunrunner'

The cries of "weak U.S. gun laws are causing carnage in Mexico" are being screeched again, and the BATFE wants a piece of the action.

Faced with spiraling drug violence along the border, senior U.S. officials met with their Mexican counterparts Wednesday and announced steps to stem the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.

Officials said that many of the weapons – including powerful handguns and semiautomatic assault rifles – are purchased legally at shops and gun shows, and that Houston and Dallas are two of the top sources. The guns are typically carried south across the border by multiple couriers whom some officials referred to as an "army of ants."

Even black-market military-style weapons, such as .50-caliber machine guns, bazookas and grenades, have been seized in raids.

I've commented recently about the "machine guns, bazookas and grenades," pointing out that such items are extremely heavily regulated in the U.S.--"weak laws" here aren't responsible for Mexican drug gangs' possession of them. But don't worry--"Maximum Mike" is on the case, so we're sure to get to the bottom of this.

"Drug-trafficking organizations have made life at the border increasingly dangerous," Michael J. Sullivan, acting director of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said in El Paso. "And this danger extends across the border and into several parts of Mexico."

In fact, his boss, Attorney General Michael Mukasey (who, incidentally, is also the boss of solicitor general Paul Clement, author of the Department of Justice's D.C. v. Heller amicus brief that has the D.C. legal team "gratified," and has the Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke "saluting" the administration) is now announcing a new program just to deal with this issue.

In Mexico City, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the goal of what officials are calling Project Gunrunner is to dry up the cartels' arms supply in the U.S. by punishing gun dealers who knowingly sell weapons to "straw" buyers who then resell them illegally.

"Project Gunrunner," eh? And just how, might I ask, does the BATFE intend to determine which gun dealers "knowingly" sell firearms to "straw purchasers"?

"I certainly foresee a tightening-up of the way gun dealers distribute guns if, in fact, they are selling to straw purchasers," Mr. Mukasey said after meeting with his Mexican counterpart, Eduardo Medina Mora, and Mexican President Felipe Calderón.

"I see tighter enforcement of regulations requiring that they get proper identification and that they check these people before they sell guns, and inevitably we are going to find people who are not doing what they ought to do, and they will be prosecuted," Mr. Mukasey said in an interview.

I see Bloomberg-style "sting" operations in gun shops, but this time carried out with the force of law behind them, rather than just the force of Bloomberg's ego (a not inconsiderable force, admittedly).

Under Project Gunrunner, ATF is adding 35 special agents along the border. The multi-agency El Paso Intelligence Center will receive three additional ATF agents, for a total of 10, and an additional investigator, for a total of four. Other agents will be stationed in Mexico. EPIC will serve as a clearinghouse for ATF operations and will gather intelligence on the cartels responsible for the violence.

On the bright side, I suppose that the more manpower and funding they use going after folks in other countries, the less they'll have available for jack-booted thuggery here.

The article goes on for a while, but I'm going to leave it alone, after mentioning one more bit of hysterical fear mongering:

One of the most popular weapons is the FN 57, a Belgian-made handgun known in Mexico as mata policias – "cop killer" – because the bullets can penetrate body armor, the official said.

Ah--the FN Five seveN hysteria. Trying to drum up support for H.R. 1784, are we?

Look out, Texas and Arizona--here comes "F Troop."

More Illinois counties embrace freedom

In the process of composing yesterday's post, I realized that it had been quite awhile since I had posted an update about the county-by-county spread of resolutions condemning Chicago-style trampling of the right to keep and bear arms. As it happens, rather a lot has gone on in the month and a half since the last update.

Jackson (Dec. 12th), Cass (Dec. 13th), and Ogle (Jan. 15th) Counties have all passed resolutions of support for the Second Amendment. That makes 64 counties (of 102) that have taken a public stand against the disarming of Illinois. Additionally, Clinton County's board will vote on the resolution next week (Jan. 22nd), and Macon (also Jan. 22nd), Peoria (Jan. 31st), and Moultries (Feb. 6th) Counties have scheduled committee votes, which will hopefully lead to votes by the whole board.

This brings the map to this:

(click to enlarge)

As always, the place to stay current on this movement is the Illinois Pro Second Amendment website.

The people of Illinois are speaking, but are legislators listening?

IGOLD '08--be heard on March 11

UPDATE: There has been a revision to the Rockford/Normal bus itinerary--see below.

UPDATE II: Another bus has been added, with pick-ups in Effingham, Vandalia, and Litchfield--details below

Last year, Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day was a big success, with over 1,200 Illinois gun rights activists going to Springfield to let legislators know that the policies of state-mandated defenselessness are not acceptable. The media did its best to ignore this statewide outpouring of opposition to restrictive gun laws, although the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) decided it was big enough to be worth lying about.

As well as it went last year, we have still bigger plans for IGOLD '08 (web page still under construction--keep an eye on it [UPDATE: it's up now]). Many Illinois legislators seem to be rather hard of hearing when it comes to the peaceable Illinois citizens' demands for recognition of our Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--so let's turn up the volume.

Below, you will find information on how to reserve a seat on buses to Springfield from all over the state.

IGOLD 2008 is officially set for Tuesday, March 11, 2008

12:00 p.m. Rally at the Hilton, 700 E Adams St.
1:30 p.m. lobby legislators
4:30-7:00 Reception at the State Library
7:00 p.m. Depart for home

Mark that day on your calendar, schedule a vacation day, personal day, whatever you have to do to be in Springfield on that day!! Last year more than 1,500 Illinois gun owners swarmed the Capitol complex lobbying state legislators for firearm owners rights and the need for a Right to Carry law in Illinois.

With the help of sponsors we have been able to charter buses from the locations listed below. Bus fares will be $20 ( or in the case of Champaign/Decatur donations will be accepted) and seat reservations are a must!!! We will be making flier documents available for you to print out and hand out in your neighborhoods, work places, wherever you can to get the word out.

Check in often for updates!

IGOLD 08 Charter Bus Schedule

Advance reservations required for bus seats!
Beginning Monday Jan. 14, 2008 For reservations and departure locations go to www.IGOLD.isra.org or call 815-635-3198

Dundee/Aurora $20
6:00 a.m. Depart from GAT Guns, 14N915 IL RT 25, Dundee, IL ,
7:00 a.m. Aurora - Pick-up at Fox Valley Mall, 195 Fox Valley Center - Park near Steak N Shake
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Ryan's Steak House, 2730 N Dirksen Pkwy, Springfield, IL, $10 includes meal-drink-tax-tip,


Joliet/Chatsworth $20
6:30 a.m. Depart Gander Mt., 3301 Essington Rd., Joliet, IL (Park at farthest edge near Outback
8:00 a.m. Pick-up Chatsworth, ISRA Headquarters
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Ryan's Steak House, 2730 N Dirksen Pkwy, Springfield, IL, $10 includes meal-drink-tax-tip

North Chicago Area $20
7:00 a.m. Depart Allright Parking at Cumberland Stop, 5701 N River Rd, $3/15 hr, $6/24 hr
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Ryan's Steak House, 2730 N Dirksen Pkwy, Springfield, IL, $10 includes meal-drink-tax-tip,

Chicago South (Englewood) $20
7:00 a.m. St Andrews Temple, 6722 S Hermitage Ave, Chicago, IL 60636
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Ryan's Steak House, 2730 N Dirksen Pkwy, Springfield, IL $10 includes meal-drink-tax-tip

Champaign/Decatur - Free, donations accepted
8:30 a.m. Depart Farm and Fleet parking lot, Urbana, IL
9:45 a.m. Decatur Sam's Club pick up point
10:30 a.m. Lunch – Ryan’s Restaurant $10 per person
For reservations contact CCRA/GSL johnnaese@insightbb.com (217) 684-2602

Rockford/Normal $20
6:30a.m. Depart CherryVale Mall, 7200 Harrison Ave, park out by Petland Near Bell School Rd.
9:30 a.m. Pick up at College Hills Mall, Normal, IL Park between Target And Von Maur
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, $8.50 include meal-drink-tax-tip

Rockford/Mendota/Normal–4 hrs. $20
6:30 a.m. Rockford - Depart CherryVale Mall, 7200 Harrison Ave., park out by Petland Near Bell School Rd.
7:30 a.m. Mendota - Buster's Truck Plaza, Mendota, IL
9:00 a.m. Normal - Pick up at College Hills Mall Park between Target And Von Maur
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, IL $8.50 include meal-drink-tax-tip, Bus drivers and captains eat free.

Marion $20
7:00 a.m. Depart Sam’s Club parking lot, 2709 Walton Way just west of I-57 exit 54– park at far north edge
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, IL $8.50 includes meal-drink-tax-tip

Mt.Vernon/Fairview Heights $20
7:15 a.m. Depart Mt.Vernon Walmart Parking lot just west of I-57 at exit 95
8:15 a.m. Depart St.Clair Square Mall locate in Fairview Heights just south of I-64 at exit #12
Park Red Bird Express Parking lot just past the East doors of Dillards and the water tower
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, IL $8.50 include meal-drink-tax-tip

Quincy/Barry/Jacksonville $20
8:00 a.m. Quincy - Depart Kmart east parking lot, 3701 Broadway
8:45 a.m. Barry - I-72 exit #20 Travel Plaza passenger pick-up
9:30 a.m. Jacksonville - I-72 exit #64, Blackhawk Village Inn,
1111 East Morton Road, park near the brick wall & closed restaurant
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, IL $8.50 include meal-drink-tax-tip

Moline/Galesburg/Peoria $20
7:00 a.m. Depart South Park Mall 4500 16th St, Moline, IL Park across from Long John Silvers
8:00 a.m. Pick up at Sandburg Mall, 1150 W Carl Sandburg Dr., Galesburg, IL Park at the far south end by Bergner’s
9:00 a.m. Pick up at Walmart parking lot, 3315 North University Street, Peoria, IL park in the far lot
10:30 a.m. Lunch at Old Country Buffet, 2733 S Veterans Pkwy, Springfield, IL $8.50 include meal-drink-tax-tip

*New!* Effingham/Vandalia/Litchfield *New!* - Free, donations accepted
7:30 a.m. Effingham – Depart K-Mart parking lot – 1006 N. Keller at I-70 exit 160 Please park at edge of lot away from the building (Map soon)
8:00 a.m. Vandalia - Depart Harmon’s IGA parking lot, 827 Veterans Ave. 62471 just southwest of I-70 exit 63 Please park at N/W corner between Subway and IGA. Employee parking area. (Map soon)
9:30 a.m. Litchfield – Depart Tractor Supply (TSC), 20 Litchfield Plaza, Litchfield, IL Just east of I-55 exit 52 (Map soon)
10:30 am Springfield - Lunch - Old Country buffet $8.50 per person (includes meal, drink, gratuity, bus captain collects money)
On-line reservation or call 815-635-3198
Bus provided by PK Firearms of Shelbyville, IL
Donations accepted - Donations will go to the ISRA legal defense fund

Bus fares will be $20 with the exception of Champaign/Decatur and Effingham/Vandalia/Litchfieled where donations will be accepted
Advance reservations required for bus seats!
Beginning 1-14-08 For reservations and departure locations go to www.IGOLD.isra.org or call 815-635-3198

Help spread the word--here are links to flyers that folks can print up (or better yet, have them a print shop do it on gold/yellow paper) for dissemination at gun shops, ranges, gun clubs, gun shows, etc.

ISRA's flyer (pdf format)
Aurora info (MS Word doc)
Champaign info (MS Word doc)
Chicago info (MS Word doc)
Mt. Vernon-Fairview Heights info (MS Word doc)

A "supermajority" of Illinois counties have rejected Chicago-style "gun-control" (which reminds me--I'm behind on my updates). That would not have happened, had the people of those counties not become fed up with the relentless attacks on liberty and self-defense. Many lawmakers don't want to hear about that. Too bad--that's their job, and we need to hold them to it, or get them out of that job.

Put your money where your rights are

As War on Guns notes, there is a group of scholars, Academics for the Second Amendment, who are working hard to assemble compelling arguments for use in District of Columbia v. Heller to support the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The folks doing this are (pun intended) "big guns" of pro-rights scholarship:

David T. Hardy
Clayton Cramer
Joseph E. Olson

Preparing this kind of document isn't cheap, and some monetary help would be much appreciated.

There is clearly no lack of people working hard to maintain the suppression of the right to keep and bear arms in D.C.--and it's clear that the other side has no lack of funds.

As David says:

Wouldn't it be nice if our side prevails to know that you helped make it happen? Wouldn't it be pathetic if we lose and you know you didn't?

We don't need to be as wealthy as Michael Bloomberg or George Soros, but we do have to treat this as a fight for our most precious, fundamental rights.

Happy now, Dick?

Back when Michael Mukasey was confirmed as Attorney General, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was less than enthusiastic, at least partially because of Mukasey's stated position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Take another unsettled legal question: whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms. Here is what Judge Mukasey told me: “Based on my own study, I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

In other words, Judge Mukasey agrees with the Bush Administration when it comes to retroactive immunity and the Second Amendment.

Well, take heart, Senator, because one of Mukasey's top minions has taken the position that yes--the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and yes--Washington D.C.'s handgun ban may well be unconstitutional, but . . . the Supreme Court still shouldn't overturn it (a right "of the people" is apparently really a right of the people, but "shall not be infringed" surely can't really mean "shall not be infringed"). Heaven forbid that people start thinking that the Supreme Court's job is overturning unconstitutional laws, or something.

Then again, perhaps Durbin looks at the issue the same way this Bush apologist does, and believes that this brief isn't a direct attack on gun rights. (h/t WoG)

If that's true, though, it's odd that the D.C. legal team seems to be happy about the brief:

Peter Nickles, the District's acting attorney general, called the brief a "somewhat surprising and very favorable development."

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, who has been retained to argue the city's case before the court, added: "While there is a great deal in the solicitor general's opinion with which we disagree, I am gratified they recognize the Court of Appeals erred in striking down the District's law without considering whether it was reasonable to ban a type of weapon -- handguns -- which can be concealed and carried into schools, office buildings and subways."

The pro-rights legal team would seem to think Dellinger has reason to be happy.

Even though Clement's brief said it is not filed in support of either side, it "is basically siding with the District of Columbia," said Alan Gura, an attorney for the District residents challenging the law. "The idea that the court somehow got this wrong is absurd."

(h/t Liberty Zone)

The Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke is also pleased about the brief.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he saluted the administration for recognizing a need for limits on gun rights. Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, said he was disappointed over the administration's position, adding that he was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back for further hearings in a lower court.

"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our position," Gura said.

On the balance, Dick, I'd say that your anti-rights side has done better so far out of the Mukasey Attorney Generalship than we have.

Late to the party, but better late than never

Last week, when Stan demolished this Reuters article (by Bernd Debusmann) about the "demise" of the gun culture in the U.S. (Snowflakes in Hell, War on Guns, and Say Uncle hit it, too), I should have linked to it--that was some great work on Stan's part. I took special interest in the revelations that the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), quoted by Debusmann, receives money from the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

I didn't, though--largely because it was so well covered (here and here, for example) elsewhere. Now, however, it's just getting too fun to stay away. First, Stan noticed that even Reuters is seemingly starting to step away from Debusmann. To top it all off, now Debusmann is apparently taking exception to the criticism.

Pretty spirited counterattack, considering it's coming from a "dying" gun culture, eh, Bernd?

Paging Dr. Paul

War on Guns, in suggesting a course of action for the Ron Paul campaign to take in response to The Decider's latest anti-gun treachery, has once again driven me to direct plagiarism--this needs to be repeated, far, wide, and fast.

Open Message to Ron Paul Campaign

I just submitted the following to the Ron Paul campaign via their contact form:

The Bush DOJ just filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Distict in the Heller case.

It is imperative that Dr. Paul issue an immediate and unequivocal statement condemning this move and detailing what he would do if he were president.

This is a chance to get immediate attention from gun owners and once again set Dr Paul apart from the pack.

Don't let Fred Thompson beat you to the punch on this. Get this to the attention of campaign decision makers now.

More:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/vote-freedom-first-president-speaks-for.html

I know you people reading these are volunteers. Trust me, this is huge. Go right now and get this into the hands of someone who can do something with it.

Now what I'm hoping is that those of you in the Thompson and Mike Huckabee camps will actually take exception to this and do the same. We need all the political pressure we can muster, and it really is past time to separate the talkers from the doers.

Let's race.

I'm hoping Paul supporters will--right now--click on the contact form link and tell the campaign to get moving on this without delay. And spread the word.

Teepen keepin' to his citizen disarmament message

I've written about Tom Teepen's anti-liberty leanings before--so has War on Guns. Yesterday, Teepen proved that whatever else one can say about him, he cannot be accused of inconsistency.

In yesterday's screed, he laments that the NRA's support for the NICS "Improvement" (translation: NICS Expansion) Act notwithstanding, gun rights advocacy is not dead.

Even the National Rifle Association, which ordinarily sees a wolf hiding in every common-sense gun proposal, didn't cry its practiced faux alarm this time.

"Faux alarm?" So Representative McCarthy and Senator Schumer aren't working on the "next step" toward citizen disarmament?

And the Bush administration, which had played the key role in putting semi-automatic assault weapons back into civilian circulation, went along.

"Key role?" Because he didn't sign the bill that Congress never passed? I've had just about enough of Bush getting credit for being a champion of gun rights--something rather hard to reconcile with this.

The noisiest reaction to the recent murder of nine in a shooting spree in a Omaha mall denounced the ban many malls have on customers packing heat. If only shoppers had been armed, the complaint went, they could have shot that sorry sucker dead. And collateral damage from a bunch of amateurs blasting away in panic in a crowded mall? Never mind.

First, Tom, is math (by that, I mean counting) not your strong suit (assuming, of course, that you have a strong suit)? I count eight murders, and one (tragically belated) suicide. Second, when you disparage the self-defense efforts of "amateurs," should I take your meaning to be that the only people with the right to defend their lives are the ones being paid to do so?

If you wish to be defenseless and subservient, Tom, that is certainly your prerogative. If you wish to drag the rest of the country down to your pathetic level, expect a fight . . . and I don't think you're ready for a fight.

Jews Against the Power to Resist the Next Holocaust

It is with genuine bafflement that I learn of the American Jewish Committee filing an amicus brief in favor of Washington D.C.'s draconian citizen disarmament laws.

The American Jewish Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today, asserting that the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws do not offend the Constitution. The case, D.C. v. Heller, will be the first gun control case before the Supreme Court in sixty eight years.

“Gun control laws safeguard liberty, rather then restrict it,” said AJC General Counsel Jeffrey Sinensky. “Democracy can only flourish when the government is permitted to protect its citizens from harm.”

How can a subset of a people that has, for thousands of years, been subject to systematic slaughter--either with the government's tacit approval, or at the very hands of the government--advocate a government monopoly on force?

Guys, can't you talk some sense into these people? I hope, for the sake of the leadership of the AJC, that there is no life after this one--if there is, Golda Meir is gonna kick their asses.

Nicki has a superb, related piece here.

UPDATE: And now she has an even stronger post, referring to the same press release covered here. Go get 'em, Nicki.

'Microstamping' to no longer be just California Dreamin'?

I've written recently about what I think will now be the biggest priority for the citizen disarmament lobby--closing the so-called "gun show loophole," and from there, moving on to regulate all private sales of firearms (I also touched on that, tangentially, here). There's another possibility, though, as pointed out by the tyranny enablers at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence have released a new report entitled "Microstamping Technology: Precise and Proven." The report collects and analyzes some of the most recent research available on this exciting ballistic identification technology, revealing that the microstamping process is feasible, durable and proven. Now that California has enacted a historic, first-of-its-kind microstamping law, law enforcement officials will have unprecedented new tools to solve gun-related crimes. Interest in the technology is growing in other states and at the federal level, with Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Xavier Becerra planning to introduce microstamping legislation during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress.

I'm not sure why they feel the need to write a new bill, with H.R. 1874 already introduced--perhaps the fact that it has been around almost seven months without picking up a single cosponsor has something to do with it (although why they would expect another bill that does the same thing to fare any better is a bit hard to figure, as well).

I don't really see this silliness getting any traction anytime soon, but it still bears watching.

Utah gun dealer punished for punk's actions

Ryan Horsley, in posting at his Red's Trading Post blog about U.S. Senator Robert Bennett's (R-Utah) apparent refusal to take a stand to block confirmation of "Maximum Mike" Sullivan as director of the BATFE, tells of a disgusting injustice I hadn't known about. I refer here to the sentencing of Utah gun dealer Westley Wayne Hill to one year of probation for selling a shotgun to the thug who perpetrated the Trolley Square murders last February--despite the fact that Mr. Hill conducted the required background check, which the thug passed.

Mr. Hill supposedly made two mistakes. Since the thug (I have adopted a policy of refusing to repeat the names of the sick punks who commit these atrocities) was a resident alien, rather than a U.S. citizen, a second form of identification is required to complete a gun sale, and a line on the form documenting the sale is supposed to be filled out to note the secondary identification. Mr. Hill neglected to do this.

Earl Xaiz, Hill's defense attorney, told the judge that Hill had done the required background check on Talovic when selling the gun, including calling the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and providing an alien identification number for Talovic.

"He went through the procedure required to get approval for the sale," Xaiz said.

What Mr. Hill failed to do was fill in a line that documents a secondary form of identification, which is required for non-citizens who buy guns.

Is anyone going to try to tell me that compliance with this trivial detail of the grotesquely extensive federal firearms requirements would have stopped the sale? That our murderous punk could not have produced a second form of ID, or that documenting that second form would have made a difference?

Secondly, and here we get into an even more arcane and silly aspect of federal firearms laws, the shotgun in question was not really, technically, legally a shotgun, because it was fitted with a pistol grip, rather than a shoulder stock. As stated in this Department of Justice press release (which should have been dated 2007, rather than 2006--you know--the kind of paperwork error that if made by a gun dealer, could get him sent to federal prison), such a weapon is not considered a shotgun, but instead as an "Any Other Weapon" (or AOW), and is not legal to sell to people under the age of 21.

The weapon Talovic bought from Hill was not equipped with a shoulder stock and was not designed to be fired from the shoulder. It was not manufactured as a shotgun as defined by federal law, and therefore could not be sold to someone under 21.

Never mind that the punk didn't need a pistol grip shotgun to inflict his carnage--he wasn't trying to conceal the shotgun--he apparently started firing as soon as he got out of his car. Never mind that the shoulder stock-equipped version of the shotgun in question would have been perfectly legal for him to buy, and that a pistol grip can be bought for less than $20 (perfectly legal to buy at any age) and easily retrofitted in minutes, without any gunsmithing skills. And lest that last point provoke hysterical cries of a "pistol grip loophole," it should be pointed out that just about any shotgun stock can be shortened down to pistol grip form, simply by using a saw.

Mr. Hill is a scapegoat and a victim.

Carolyn's next step

As most folks who follow gun law/gun rights issues in the U.S. are probably aware, The Decider signed the NICS "Improvement" Act into law yesterday. I've made my position on this legislation clear, and whether one agrees with the Brady Campaign/NRA axis that this is a "victory for common sense gun control"/"win for American gun owners," or with the Violence Policy Center/Gun Owners of America axis that it's a "Trojan horse gun control law"/"stab in the back for gun owners," it's now a done deal.

That taken care of, Carolyn McCarthy has announced her "next step," and it's not learning what a barrel shroud is.

President George W. Bush signed the nation's first new gun-control legislation in 14 years Tuesday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy immediately announced she would take her crusade to the next step.

This time, she and others want to close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows some dealers to sell firearms without background checks.

These "dealers," by the way, are no more gun dealers than a person who sells his used car is a car dealer. I touched briefly on the issue of private gun sales yesterday--I think the biggest priority on the citizen disarmament side now will be closure of the "gun show loophole" in the short run, and requiring all gun sales to go through licensed dealers in the long run.

Schumer agreed that the next item on the gun-control agenda would be to require background checks in every gun sale, but predicted that would be harder to get passed because of opposition by the National Rifle Association. The law signed Tuesday, in contrast, had NRA support.

Yeah--I was kind of thinking that "opposition by the National Rifle Association" (instead of open collaboration) might have come in useful in the case of the NICS "Improvement" Act, too.

Of course, some would argue that by pushing for H.R. 2640, the NRA headed off attempts to impose something more onerous. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have discouraged Carolyn and Chuck from pursuing their "next step." For some reason, I can't shake the idea that it would be better to have made the enemy fight for every inch of the previous step, rather than help them advance to the next one, but I, of course, lack LaPierre's keen tactical mind.

Weak grenade laws?

It has become popular these days to blame "weak gun laws" in the U.S. for violence in Mexico. Reading the most recent example of that, I found myself left with a question.

For more than a half-hour around noon, the streets of Rio Bravo turned into a war zone after federal agents tried to stop a van carrying three men with machine guns in full view. The men fired on the officers and then fled to a nearby house to join other members of their organization.

Machine-gun fire ripped the air and rocket-propelled grenades whizzed and exploded, as soldiers and federal agents surrounded the house and the gunmen tried to repel them, witnesses told local reporters. There were unconfirmed reports of two other skirmishes in other parts of the city around the same time.

Where in the U.S., I can't help but wonder, can one find these unregulated machine guns and RPG's? Money is tight for me these days, and health issues make travel difficult, but for that kind of thing, I'll do what it takes to set up a shopping trip.

After the gunfight, the federal authorities raided four houses in Rio Bravo and recovered a large cache of military weapons: 16 sniper rifles, 7 machine guns, one grenade launcher and 12 automatic pistols. Flak jackets, a safe, radios, grenades and ammunition were also seized.

Machine guns, a grenade launcher (and grenades), automatic pistols (or is that NY Times-speak for semi-automatic pistols?)--those things aren't covered by "weak gun laws." Why the NY Times thought it important to list radios and a safe among the arsenal is another question.

Next, we get to the inevitable "blame the 'weak gun laws' in the U.S." part.

It remained unclear where the group purchased the weapons, but officials here have sharply criticized the United States in recent days for doing too little to stop the flow of guns into Mexico from states with weaker gun-control laws, like Texas. They acknowledge, however, that Mexico could do more to search vehicles crossing their border.

Mexico could do more to help secure the border? Color me shocked. That is new.

“There is a lack of control in the north-to-south traffic across the border — we are establishing controls — but whoever sells arms in North American territory should be held responsible for the destination and the use of those arms,” Mr. Patiño said.

Silly me--all this time I was thinking it was the thugs whom we should hold responsible. I must of thought I lived in a society that valued freedom and personal responsibility, or something.

Anyway, if anyone knows where I can find one of those grenade shops in Texas, let me know.

Big Brother looks to get still bigger

Wading through the muck of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website for yesterday's post, I ran across mention of a piece of proposed federal legislation with which I was unfamiliar. I refer to the "Detectives Nemorin and Andrews Anti-Gun Trafficking Act" (second from the top). The mayors list it as "Expected to be introduced," but are apparently a bit slow to update their website, as H.R. 4818 was introduced about three weeks ago.

The sponsor is none other than Armed and Safe favorite Representative Peter King (R-NY), sponsor of the heinous H.R. 2074 (House version of S. 1273--the legislation that would permit the Attorney General to unilaterally block a gun sale by placing the prospective buyer on the grotesquely bloated "terrorist watch list"). King is also a campaign adviser to Rudy "Freedom is about authority" Giuliani.

Looking at the text of H.R. 4818, I see some . . . interesting provisions. Apparently, NICS (a newly expanded NICS, no less) is no longer enough, and King wants to establish a . . .

. . . national instant stolen gun check system that any licensee may contact, by telephone or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether a firearm to be received by the licensee is stolen.

Additionally, a licensed firearms dealer cannot receive a gun from a non-licensee without first checking the stolen gun registry and checking the person's Real ID.

With all the pressure to force all gun sales to go through licensed dealers (pressure that will inevitably be stepped up)--pressure such as H.R. 96, which would close the mythical "gun show loophole" by forcing all sales at gun shows to go through licensed dealers, we're looking at multiple new, thick layers of bureaucracy to be hacked through for untold millions of firearms transactions (and the vast cost all of this new bureaucracy would entail).

This is another bill we need to watch, folks.

An analysis of D.C.'s Heller brief--far better than anything I could have written

A fellow Illinois Carry member recently offered an analysis of the Supreme Court brief submitted Friday by the District of Columbia in the D.C. v. Heller case. This analysis was not only superbly penetrating and thorough, it was also written in terms simple enough for me to understand--no small feat. It occurred to me that this analysis deserved exposure on a wider stage. Although Armed and Safe is hardly a "wide stage," the level of traffic I get now would have astonished me when I started less than a year and a half ago, and I sometimes get some generous help from some of my betters in the gun blogging community.

I was not the only Illinois gun rights blogger to whom the thought of publishing "Carl in Chicago's" excellent work occurred, though, and in fact I was not even the first. DW beat me to it (as if he's the one who needed to bring in additional intellectual muscle--talk about the rich getting richer), so I'll content myself with a link, and an excerpt.

Statement of the Case

In the Statement, DC commences by stating that the Nation's capital has regulated guns for two centuries -- initially with laws forbidding the firing of guns in residential areas, and culminating with today's total prohibition on handguns and functional long arms. While this history is true, what the statement effectively if not ironically does is outline the very real 'Slippery Slope' argument. This phenomenon is addressed in a Hamline Law Review paper by Olson and Kopel (1999), which provides an analysis of the situation in England. To visualize the 'slippery slope', imagine a graph with time on the X-axis and gun rights on the Y-axis; from the origin (of the graph), time runs from past to present, and gun rights run from absolute infringement to absolutely no infringement. Notwithstanding the criminals to whom gun laws don't necessarily matter, we are talking about gun rights that are infringed by institutionalized law. If you examine the history of gun control in the United States, you will witness increasingly more restrictive laws over time. Thus, over time, the line has moved down this slope with the passage of gun regulations (infringements). Based on history, it is apparent that movement of the line is not equally bi-directional; it appears very easy for the line to move downward over time and likewise, very difficult for it to move up. Hence, the 'slippery slope.' The only logical end-point of this history, and of that line, is an eventual absolute ('lawful') infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Please follow the link and read the entire analysis--you'll be glad you did.

'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' can't get anyone to notice them

Mayor Bloomberg's coalition of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" sent a survey to the presidential candidates in early December, asking the candidates' positions on several citizen disarmament issues these mayors hold dear. The response from the candidates has been a bit less than the mayors had probably hoped for.

The Republican and Democratic candidates running for president have largely ignored Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun questionnaire despite his stated desire to influence the national debate on the topic.

None answered the questionnaire that Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition released on Dec. 9 and paid $22,200 to publicize last week in full page newspaper ads in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said no candidate responded by the Jan. 2 deadline; one asked for an extension, so the new deadline is Jan. 14. Post declined to say which candidate wanted more time.

Perhaps we shouldn't vote for anyone for president.

That can't sit well with citizen disarmament advocates. With even former stalwarts of their movement trying (poorly) to make nice with the gun rights movement (hear of any presidential candidates appearing at a Brady Campaign event?)--and don't forget Hillary knocking Obama for being unelectable by virtue of being too anti-gun--citizen disarmament just doesn't seem to be a platform on which anyone wants to stand.

By the way, looking at the survey the mayors sent shows just how out of touch they are. Some of the questions (and the presumably "right" answers) are just plain scary. A sampling, with my comments interjected:

Microstamping: In September 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation to require that all new models of guns manufactured or sold in California include “microstamping” technology starting in 2010. . . . Do you support legislation that would require new firearms sold in the United States to include microstamping technology?

Great--let's spread California-style tyranny across the entire country

Illegal Traffickers: Do you support increasing the maximum penalty for illegal gun trafficking crimes from 10 years to 20 years [relating to penalties under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d), 924(g), 924(h), and 924(n), consistent with provisions of S.77 (110th Congress)]?

S. 77--wonderful

“Terror Gap”: Six years after 9/11, the federal government lacks the authority to prevent gun sales to suspects on terror watch lists. . . . As president, would you support passage of legislation to close this Terror Gap in federal laws?

Don't even get me started on S. 1237

Secure Identification for Gun Purchases: In 2013, the federal “Real ID Act” will go into full effect. In order to get into a federal building or to get on a commercial airplane, all persons will have to show secure identification that is compliant with the Real ID Act. . . . Do you support a change in federal law to require that gun purchasers show Real ID-compliant identification by 2013?

Real ID--I should have figured these authority freaks would be all over that one

And that's just the "highlights."

No wonder even the presidential candidates who are obviously no supporters of gun ownership want nothing to do with these loons.

Second Amendment Carnival XV

A little late (for reasons beyond Stan's control), but the Carnival is up today. As always, it's a must-read.

Calculating the cost of freedom

OK, to be honest, I have no idea how to even begin to do that. Bob Leibowitz, though, provides us an estimate of how much it costs to fight against freedom.

But, not to worry. To prepare its case, the District hired seven outside attorneys, some of the top guns—no pun there!—from two of the area’s most prestigious and expensive firms, to help write and now perhaps argue its case.

The brief, 58 pages in chief with 162 separate citations, likely cost DC taxpayers at least $500,000, perhaps twice that, for research and writing. The result bears the hallmarks of authorship by a brilliant committee of highly skilled, charged and ego-endowed lawyers. It is a writing of which only a lawyer—no, only a conclave of lawyers paid by the word or the hour—could be proud. Each point is made with pinpoint precision in a well-organized pyramid of arguments, crafted and printed only after hours, days and weeks of research, collaboration, argument and honing by memo.

I'm trying, and failing miserably, to wrap my head around the idea of being a D.C. resident, living in a state of mandated defenselessness--and paying vast sums of money to help sustain that evil mandate.

Getting back to the original question-I still don't know the answer--although Robert Levy might (but he's not telling).

“We didn’t want this case pictured as another case sponsored by the usual suspects, which is to say the gun community,” Mr. Levy said. “Basically we wanted this to be a grass-roots public interest case, so I decided to fund it.”

He would not say how much he had spent.

“If you were paying market rates for a case that has been around almost five years, you’d be getting up to half a million bucks,” he said. “I haven’t spent anything near that. Not even in the ballpark.”

Quite a lot less than D.C. residents are being charged for the suppression of their freedom, clearly--and the bill for the pro-freedom effort isn't going to the taxpayers.

Great ideas for Paul campaign, from War on Guns

But the campaign needs to move on this now. I'm just going to quote the whole thing (taking my War on Guns plagiarizing act to a whole new level).

Paul Campaign: Make Lemons Out of Lemonade

We talked about this in passing here.

Now it looks like Ron Paul will be allowed to particpate in the ABC debates.

"Fair and Balanced" and "conservative" Faux News will not allow him to appear, even though he finished in Iowa far ahead of Sean Hannity darling Rudy Giuliani, who is invited, and is polling far ahead of Fred Thompson, also an invitee, in New Hampshire.

You shouldn't need to be a Paul supporter to be outraged by this manipulation of the electorate by corporate media special interests. There are two things his supporters are encouraging us to do:

Leave a comment for the Faux propagandists at their "You Decide '08" page, and visit the "Protest Fox" webpage and learn how to send an email or two.

These are both good actions, and I will do them this weekend, but it's also time for some real creative and outside the box thinking from the Paul campaign team--immediate action. If negotiations are unsuccessful at getting their candidate in at the last minute, they should do three things--they should be starting on them now:

1. Use a portion of that $20M they've raised to buy a 1-minute ad for Ron to be aired immediately before the debate--if not on Fox, then on their competitor CNN. The content of the ad should be to call attention to his exclusion, to provide an overview of his message, and to direct viewers to #2,

2. Have Ron live on the Internet at the same time as the debate, answering all questions posed to the candidates on the Fox program. This could actually work to his advantage, as there'd be no distractions from other candidates, no questions intentionally leaving him out, and no misrepresentations of his positions or statements by the other candidates. It could also draw a significant portion of the audience away from Fox.

3. Publicize the hell out of this. Issue press releases to get it into the news. Use the unprecedented Internet network Paul supporters have established.

I have no real hopes that this will be done as I have no real influence with the Paul campaign. But I think if he did this, the wave of publicity and curiosity and potential for getting his message out could be tremendous. But if they're going to do it, they need to do it NOW, because the debate is tomorrow.

If you agree, contact the Paul campaign and tell them so. If they want to make this happen, nobody's going to go to bed tonight.

New Jersey uses Bill of Rights as Charmin substitute

Snowflakes in Hell brings us the bad news that New Jersey is likely slipping still further into gun owner's hell (every time I think states like NJ, CA, or my own IL can't get any worse, they seem to take it as a challenge). The article to which SiH refers mentions three bills. I'm going to discuss just one of those today.

The Senate voted 26-7 for a bill requiring handgun owners to tell state or local police within 36 hours of discovering a handgun they own is lost or stolen, in an effort to crack down on straw purchasers who buy weapons in bulk and sell them on the black market. The Assembly Judiciary Committee also approved the bill.

When weapons used in crimes are traced back to their legal purchaser, that person can claim the gun was lost or stolen -- effectively, bill sponsors say, escaping culpability for the crime. Under the bill, those who report their guns are lost or stolen would not be held civilly liable for damages suffered in any subsequent crime.

Failing to report a loss or theft could result in fines of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for all subsequent offenses.

The bill referred to here is S. 2934, and incidentally, the Courier Post seems to be a bit behind the times with this part: "Under the bill, those who report their guns are lost or stolen would not be held civilly liable for damages suffered in any subsequent crime." That statement seems to miss the amendments that (among other things) do this:

The amendments also remove language specifying that the legal owner of a lost or stolen firearm who complied with the reporting requirements would not be civilly liable for any damages resulting from a crime.

Yep--the bill initially contained language that would protect the owner from liability stemming from his being the victim of a crime, but the legislators, in their infinite wisdom, removed that provision.*

If S. 2934 passes (which it seems bound to do), I think every handgun owner in New Jersey, on the day the law goes into effect, should report that all their handguns fell into the ocean (or were irretrievably lost in some other fashion). Let the petty tyrants chew on that.

By the way, as War on Guns points out, this law can only be used against people who own their guns legally--law abiding gun owners, in other words. It cannot be used against felons or other "prohibited persons," because requiring a person to report the loss or theft of something he was barred by law from possessing in the first place would be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Interesting choice of targets for their law, isn't it?

*UPDATE: According to Sebastian, the removal of the civil liability protection language was the idea of the pro-rights side, rather than the opposition:

Actually, we wanted that provision removed. There's currently no tort that would make you liable for the actions of a criminal who stole your property an misused it. By having it in the law, it implied such a tort existed, which could have created not only civil liability, but criminal liability for a gun owner who failed to report it.

A bit counterintuitive, but I suppose I sort of see the reasoning. I guess I maligned the NJ legislature unfairly--on that issue. Ah well--hell with 'em anyway.

Finally--a reply (well, sort of)

Back in mid-December, I (belatedly) followed the lead of Red's Trading Post and War on Guns in calling for gun rights activists to make some noise in blocking the confirmation of "Maximum Mike" Sullivan as head of the BATFE. I suggested trying to talk the NRA into joining Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership in opposing Sullivan's confirmation. War on Guns posted an open letter to the NRA to that effect.

To my annoyance, response from the NRA . . . left something to be desired. A couple weeks later, Snowflakes in Hell discovered the NRA's explanation--the NRA's web contact form, apparently, was not working, and we are instead to contact them by email here: ila-contact@nrahq.org--so I did.

Today, I received a response to my email:

Dear Mr. Hofmann,

Thank you for contacting us regarding the nomination of Michael Sullivan as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). We have very serious and long-standing concerns about some of the practices and enforcement activities of BATFE. NRA has a long history of exposing problems with BATFE, and you can be sure that we are doing everything we can to address these concerns.

NRA's history of questioning BATFE activities predates even the Bureau itself. It began with our coverage of the 1971 shooting of Kenyon Ballew by investigators with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, which became the BATF a year later. During the Clinton years, NRA was the driving force behind congressional hearings that exposed the countless missteps and outrageous decisions by federal agents, including BATF agents, that led to the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

We remain focused on working to pass legislation to overhaul BATFE and ensure it complies with the law. For example, we worked with the last Congress to hold oversight hearings on BATFE policies and practices, and eventually to pass H.R. 5092 (the "BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006") through the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation sought to rewrite the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers of firearms, to prevent the all-too-common situations where BATFE has punished licensees for insignificant technical violations, such as improper use of abbreviations, or filing records in the wrong order.

In December 2007, that bill was modified and merged with legislation that makes technical changes to federal firearms laws, including rolling back unnecessary restrictions, correcting errors, and codifying longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena, into H.R. 4900 (the "BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2007"). For information on H.R. 4900, please go to: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3327

Finally, it is important to note that as a direct result of NRA-ILA's lobbying efforts, the BATFE Director must now be confirmed by the Senate, rather than simply appointed to that position, allowing for a higher level of accountability for the agency.

Thank you for contacting us. For additional information, please see NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's letter to Acting Director Michael Sullivan.


NRA-ILA

That letter, by the way, can be found (in pdf format) here.

Well, I appreciate the reply, but are they going to oppose "Maximum Mike's" confirmation, or not? It seems that on that little detail (the entire point of the correspondence), the response is still this.

Second Amendment Carnival XV tomorrow!

A reminder to gun rights advocacy bloggers--Stan, at Free Constitution, will host the next edition of his Second Amendment Carnival tomorrow. There's always tons of great stuff to read there (plus something from me, generally)--submit something!

If state law can trump an inalienable right, is that right truly inalienable?

A couple months ago, I wrote about what I consider to be a compelling argument for incorporating the Second Amendment as a restriction on the power of not only the federal government, but on that of the states, as well--through the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument I used was one shamelessly plagiarized from DW at We Are The Militia. To (very briefly) summarize: DW points out that the text of the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law . . . ." This would seem to be only a restriction on the federal government (because it's federal laws that are made by Congress). The Second Amendment, in contrast, simply describes a right that shall not be infringed--with no limits placed on by whom it shall not be infringed.

If interpreted literally, the 1st Amendment only restricts Congress from violating the rights enumerated within it. It makes no mention of other branches of the government nor of other citizens or foreign powers for that matter. Quite literally, it only protects those rights from Congress.

In contrast, the 2nd Amendment appears to be a firmly worded commandment to the Federal Government to prevent anyone from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It appears that the right is protected against any infringement by any government or individual.

DW thus makes a pretty good case for the Second Amendment imposing an obligation on the federal government to protect the right to keep and bear arms--from anyone who would infringe on it.

As things stand now, of course, the Second Amendment is not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment for enforcement against the states. My recent reading leads me to wonder how that could be. Between Bryan Wildenthal's "Nationalizing the Bill of Rights: The Rise, Fall, and Rise of the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporation Doctrine (Book Project), Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2," and Chapter 5, "Freedmen, Firearms, and the Fourteenth Amendment," of Stephen Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed, there would seem to be little room for doubt that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was the application of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the state governments.

An example from page 112 of That Every Man Be Armed:

When he introduced the Fourteenth Amendment in Congress, Senator Jacob M. Howard (Republican of Michigan) referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and the press; . . . the right to keep and bear arms. . . ." That state legislation failed to guarantee these rights rendered adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment imperative. "The great object of the first section of the amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

On page 146, Halbrook provides us another example (in truth, the chapter is packed with them--I have merely chosen a couple that were easy to work with in this format). Here, he quotes Representative John A. Bingham (R-OH), who drafted the 14th Amendment:

Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These eight amendments are as follows:

[ . . . ]

These eight articles I have shown never were limitation upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union. . . .

Not very ambiguous, is it?

Incidentally, the same chapter, despite its focus being the incorporation issue, pretty effectively demolishes the argument that the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is contingent on formal enrollment in an organized, government-sanctioned militia. When militias in formerly Confederate states engaged in a campaign of first disarming black people (along the lines of early "gun-control" laws), and then terrorizing them, laws were proposed that would disband and disarm the militias, in order to stop these atrocities. In the end, it was decided that while disbandment of such militias was permissible, disarming of the members of said militia would violate the Second Amendment. I'll explore this more fully in another blog post.

In the end, although the formal case for incorporation of the Second Amendment (and indeed, all of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights) would seem quite strong, the argument seems rather simpler than that, to me. I believe the rights protected by the Bill of Rights to be fundamental and inalienable. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in a right being inalienable, if it can be "aliened" by the state, or by any other unit of government.

How do you define the term 'rogue federal agency'?

I think Ryan Horsley might be able to help with that question. For example, would a federal agency that defies Congressional authority qualify? If not, how about if that wasn't the first time?

The Committee has heard reports that ATF has pursued license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF to focus its efforts on cases where licensees commit serious, material violation of known legal duties. The Committee urges ATF to examine it's regulations, forms and recordkeeping requirements to prevent inadvertent violations by licensees.

How about if they also willfully (to borrow a term) ignore the recommendations of the Office of the Inspector General (which, as part of the BATFE's parent organization, the Department of Justice, is tasked with oversight of the BATFE)?

Recommendation #8: Continue coordinating with the Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, to gain the authority to suspend or impose civil penalties on FFL’s that violate federal firearms laws.

The BATFE is an organization whose purpose for existence is the performance of an unconstitutional mission, an organization that routinely abuses its authority (and the citizens of the country it ostensibly serves)--apparently for the sheer enjoyment of it, and an organization that if the Brady Campaign's "Petey" Hamm and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have their way, will be placed under the control of "Maximum Mike" Sullivan.

If we can't find the off switch for this infernal machine, we had better at least put a governor on it.

'Non-violence advocates,' eh?

As I (and many others--go to SayUncle for the latest summary) have mentioned before, many of us in the gun rights advocacy blogging community have noticed what would appear to be indications of a link between Ceasefire PA board member (more on that in a minute) Professor Alexander T. Riley, and a particularly vile bigot who calls himself "NRAFOUREVER."

Going public, as we have, with those suspicions has apparently touched a nerve or two, as War on Guns discusses here (Days of our Trailers has more).

Last night, though, the source of the threats took a page out of the "Snuffy" Pfleger/"Petey" Hamm book, and upped the ante on the threats considerably. Non-violence ain't what it used to be, I guess.

About that Ceasefire PA board of directors appointment for Professor Riley--still no word about him on the board of directors website--but look at whom they are proud to have (proud enough to admit to on the website, anyway--unlike someone we could mention). More about Jennifer can be found here, here, here, and here.

2008: The Year of the Second Amendment?

OK--perhaps the title is a bit overly dramatic, but District of Columbia v. Heller gives me reason for optimism. Without wanting to count my chickens before they hatch, I have some confidence that the Supreme Court will indeed find that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that the government cannot ban gun ownership.

I base that confidence on a number of factors (one of which being the growing shrillness on the part of the citizen disarmament advocates), but perhaps the most important of them is the fact that even Constitutional scholars who have little enthusiasm for gun rights (Benjamin Wittes comes to mind--also here) are finding themselves unable to sustain the rhetorical gymnastics required to plausibly argue a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and are now stuck with having to propose that we "repeal the damn thing."

I should also be clear that even a "victory" in the Supreme Court would come nowhere close to being an end to the scourge of restrictive gun laws. I do not doubt that the scope of the finding will be quite limited, leaving plenty of room for "reasonable restrictions"--"shall not be infringed" notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I would be quite (pleasantly) surprised if the Heller decision calls for incorporation of the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. Fighting restrictive gun laws on the state and local levels will still be necessary, and in many cases, the fights will be tough.

Still, a positive outcome in the Supreme Court would be a huge boost for rights, and would be enough to make 2008 a very good year indeed.