A rather masterful takedown of Bill, who doesn’t seem to be “looking out for the folks” anymore when it comes to the right to defend themselves:
Hat-tip: Gateway Pundit
Leave a comment
Print This Post
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago today. The petitioners look to have Heller incorporated via the 14th Amendment and applied to the states.
Aside from this question, the case has also brought up the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was long ago gutted by the Slaughter-House cases. Gura and his libertarian faction have sought to overturn these cases and have the 2nd Amendment incorporated via Privileges or Immunities (Cato has a case for reviving P&I), while others have wanted to focus on the simpler case of using Due Process.
Based on accounts of the hearing today, the Court seems unlikely to revisit the Slaughter-House cases. Thankfully, it is likely to incorporate via Due Process and finally extend 2nd Amendment protections to all Americans.
Update: Reason has more here and here.
Leave a comment Print This Post
While quite possibly setting a new record for hyperbole in a press release, The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus argues that it is “radical” to grant college students the Constitutional right to defend themselves by bearing arms.
Contrary to the claim of their name, The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus isn’t actually campaigning to keep guns off campus. How can they? Banning guns didn’t do anything to stop the Virginia Tech massacre. Their objective is merely to keep legal guns off campus, so that only trouble makers and those intent on bloody murder will be armed.
They should change their name to The Campaign to Lead College Kids to Slaughter.
See here for a list of dangerous colleges that advocate the outlaw of self-defense, so you know where not to send your kids.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Really, what public good is served by this?
Thanks to the leftists at the Bloomington Herald-Times, criminals will now know which homes are armed and which ones will be easy pickings. In their moonbat zeal to shame those who dare exercise their constitutional rights into a progressive submission by publishing a database of Indiana CCW permits, they have enabled the nere-do-wells of Indiana to weed out those who can (and likely would) put up a fight.
…Since I do not have a subscription to the H-T to view the database, others viewed it and stated it just lists streets which people with gun permits are residing. Not exact addresses – so far. Which is deceiving because longer streets with more residences would obviously have more permit holders living on them.
Tyrants love lists.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I’m now officially giving that label to (not so) Great Britain. No country can match the sheer volume of jaw-droppingly stupid items that it produces on a near daily basis. It has become a cesspool of excessive multiculturalism, nanny-state paternalism and runaway liberalism. Witness:
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”. Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year. The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.”
… Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
… Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. “The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”
Let this stand as a warning to any who consider following down their path.
Hat-tip: Cato@Liberty
Leave a comment Print This Post
Anti-gun hacks exposed:
Leave a commentIn Philadelphia, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania find, possessing a gun is strongly associated with getting shot. Since “guns did not protect those who possessed them,” they conclude, “people should rethink their possession of guns.” This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unemcumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent. “Can this study possibly be as stupid as it sounds?” asks Stewart Baker at Skating on Stilts. Having shelled out $30 for the privilege of reading the entire article, which appears in the November American Journal of Public Health, I can confirm that the answer is yes.
…
The one explanation the researchers don’t mention is the one that will occur first to defenders of the right to armed self-defense: Maybe people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—are especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest Branas et al. come to acknowledging that tendency is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot ”causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.
Print This Post
A year after the Heller decision found an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court is again considering the question of gun rights. The court granted cert. in McDonald v. City of Chicago, and will hear thequestion of whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to the states, and not just the federal government, through the process of incorporation via the 14th amendment.
Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case, will be the lead attorney on the side of McDonald, a resident of a high-crime Chicago neighborhood whose application for a gun permit was turned down by the city with arguably the toughest restrictions in the country.
1 comment Print This Post
A 16-year-old boy in Maryland committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his step-fathers gun. The father demanded that the step-father take responsibility, and has launched a crusade – culminating in a $50,000 jury award – to prove that he is at fault. Underlying his efforts is a clear anti-gun subtext.
Does it really make sense to place responsibility for a teenager’s suicide (we’re talking about a deliberate act here, not an accident) on the availability of a gun? Logic suggests not. An individual determined to commit suicide will use whatever means is available. Guns are easiest and are not surprisingly used in a majority of suicides, but plenty of people find other methods.
If the step-father did not have a gun, surely he has knives that could have been used. The absense of the gun in question would not have made suicide impossible, or even unreasonably more difficult. It is therefore illogical to conclude that the step-father, simply by having an accessible gun, is responsible for the child’s act. We must not allow the need to assign blame for one tragic act compound the situation with an even more tragic assault on personal liberty.
Leave a comment Print This Post
MSNBC is freaking out. Apparently the exercise of not one, but two constitutional rights at the same time is too much for the liberal network to handle. An American with a gun? The horror!
Outside the event where President Obama will conduct his town hall, there is an anti-Obama protestor with a gun — a pistol strapped to his lower leg.
The local police chief said it’s legal for the man to have a registered handgun — as long as it is not concealed. What’s more, he is on private property, a church yard, which has given him permission to be there.
*** UPDATE *** More on the man with the gun… William Kostric is a married man in his mid 30S who works in sales. He says he moved here to New Hampshire from Arizona about a year ago, because it’s a “live free or die” state — and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws.
…
The local police say he is within his rights to carry a handgun openly under state law. He was carrying a 9-mm Smith and Wesson strapped to his lower leg.
Police say he’s OK on a public sidewalk. Kostric says he has permission from a church just down the street from the high school to be on its private property.
That’s one fella that won’t be on the receiving end of union thuggery.
Be warned: the ignorant, anti-freedom attitude continues in the article’s comments.
Update: Chris Mathews makes an ass of himself. Kostric handles his hysterics well.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor:
Your recent editorial (“The Fast-Draw-but-Don’t-Drink Law,” June 25th) regarding the decision by the Tennessee legislature to allow bar owners the right to decide for themselves whether patrons should be allowed to bring guns onto their property was heavy on hyperbole and light on facts.
The editorial approvingly quoted Gov. Bredesen’s claim that the bill is “an invitation to a disaster,” then lamented that “there is no requirement for owners to post warnings of the dangers inside at the doorways of gun-friendly places.” It also highlighted the fact that over 30 states have similar laws. With all these states creating so many opportunities for disaster, it’s interesting that your editorial writers weren’t able to muster up any specific incidents to bolster their case. Either your editorial stuff is incredibly negligent in its research, or reality simply isn’t cooperating with your anti-gun agenda.
Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Leave a comment Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
