Perhaps I was too hard on Alan Gura…

From subguns.com:

“Thanks for your support.

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way — including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer — that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) — I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process.

I didn’t make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the way that people out there — and on the court– feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very…. interesting…. ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts. I don’t need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it’s not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year’s MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can’t get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to stay angry. I’m glad you’re not among them.

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”

Thanks,
Alan”

Perhaps…

(h/t) Days of Our Trailers

Share/Save

Heller Audio

For anyone interested, the audio from todays oral arguments can be had from the folks at Gun Talk with Tom Gresham.

Click here.

Share/Save

Heller Transcript

The transcript for todays oral arguments in the D.C. vs Heller case is now online here.

(h/t) Hairy Hobbit

Share/Save

Thoughts on Heller

I just got done watching the C-Span coverage.

Some quick thoughts here while I digest everything.

Dick Heller is not the most articulate guy.

Alan Gura… I’m not completely happy with his performance though he did make several good points. His seeming acceptance of registration irks me. His apparent (unless I heard him wrong) willingness to allow some guns to be banned, but not others doesn’t jibe with the second amendment, particularly the part that goes “…shall not be infringed.” If one were to go along with the Miller case, the ban on machine guns and short barreled shotguns is also un-constitutional, but he seemed happy with it.

The opposing council Walter Dellinger seemed to struggle at times in trying to uphold the ban under questioning from the justices. Maybe it’s because the ban is un-constitutional.

Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan got some face time in after the contingent from D.C. got their turn at the microphone. They didn’t offer anything new, just the same old Brady talking points.

Adrian Fenty and his Police Chief kept saying that the murder rate has gone down since the ban and that it’s a public safety issue. I wonder what statistics they’re looking at to come to this conclusion. My every account the murder rate has skyrocketed and is completely out of proportion with the rest of the country. If it really was a public safety issue like they said it is, then they’d allow people the same right everyone else enjoys, the right to defend themselves. The BOR does not stop at the D.C. border, it applies to all Americans.

Over all, most of the justices I heard seemed to be supportive of the second amendment. I guess we’ll find out in June what their decision is, but my gut feeling is they will strike down the D.C. gun ban and leave the second amendment as an individual right.

…but I could be wrong.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal’s analysis seems to be spot on from what I heard during the oral arguments.

UPDATE II: My initial impression of Dick Heller was based on a short interview broadcast on C-Span in which his answer to why he felt he should be allowed to have a gun was the “An armed society is a polite society.” quote. Not the best answer to give to the press. However, my estimation of him has changed for the better after reading the following:

“Speaking with him [Dick Heller] on the Supreme Court steps after the arguments - and his long question-and-answer period with the media, I asked him how he felt about “his” lawsuit.

“It’s a simple case to me,” Heller said, “It is wrong for the government to tell me that it is OK for me to have a gun during my work hours, but illegal for me to have a gun when the only thing I want to protect is me.”

At that point, a reporter interjected: “the Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?”

The initial answer certainly wasn’t expected - Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.

Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, “the Mayor doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

“He doesn’t walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards - to keep him safe. But he says that I don’t have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?”

There was no follow-up question.”

I wish I could find video of this, but odds are it never made it to the air, knowing what I do about the media bias against guns.

Share/Save

This is it!

Tomorrow’s the big day ladies and gentlemen!

If you’re religious, pray for a good outcome. I shudder to think what might happen if they botch it up…

Share/Save

Goldilocks Gungrabber

LOL! This cartoon hits it right on the head!

Found via comments @ Armed and Safe

Share/Save

Guns Save Lives

Yes it’s true, no matter what the anti-freedom activists would like you to believe. Here’s a snippet from the WND article about the brief submitted by the LEAA to the Supreme Court on the side of freedom in the D.C. gun ban case.

Good stuff!

“When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the 2nd Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled “reasonable” is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the 2nd Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.”

Read the rest here.

Share/Save

Burglars have rights too…

Bullshit. If some idiot comes into my house to steal or otherwise engage in criminal activity, he has no rights. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. I am not going to endanger my life, or the lives of my family members, to ensure that Mr. Bad Guy doesn’t get hurt. And if he ends up dead because of his bad choices, it’s not my problem.

Of course it would have to be the British. What a perfect example of the failed social experiment called gun control. Yet there are people who would like us to become just like them. It boggles the mind.

From the Telegraph…

———-

Burglars have rights too, says Attorney General

By Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson

A fresh row broke out last night about the rights of householders to fight back against intruders after the Government’s most senior lawyer defended the rights of burglars.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, flew in the face of the Prime Minister’s pledge to look again at the law with a view to giving homeowners more rights when he said that existing legislation was adequate.

	Sir John Stevens: confident of support

He said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence, prompting David Davis, the shadow home secretary, to accuse the government of being dangerously split on the issue.

Lord Goldsmith’s intervention came as Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, dismissed fears that giving homeowners greater freedom when tackling burglars would lead to an “arms race” that would put them in greater danger.

He denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir John - who last weekend came out in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign, launched by this newspaper two months ago - said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.

“The fact that a would-be intruder knows a householder can respond without the fear of being prosecuted will undoubtedly deter criminal acts.” Sir John, who will step down next month after five years as commissioner, said fellow police officers were confident that it would act as a deterrent.

“We are on the ground,” he said. “We smell it, we see it, we hear it. We know what we are talking about.”

Last week, Tony Blair told the House of Commons that he would look at strengthening the law and a Tory MP has introduced a private member’s bill to do so.

Lord Goldsmith, however, appeared to take issue with the Prime Minister’s pledge to act. “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens,” he said.

“But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”

Mr Davis said: “They certainly do lose quite a lot of rights. The Government ought to make up its mind. The Prime Minister says one thing and the Attorney General says another.

“Of course all human beings have rights, but when somebody enters your home to commit a crime they give up a large portion of them.”

Some critics of a change in the law have voiced concerns that burglars will feel they have to carry guns, knives and other weapons to protect themselves from householders.

Sir John, however, did not see this as a problem. “I have confidence in the good judgement and common sense of the public in knowing how far they should go.”

He said that householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary even if - in exceptional circumstances - it involved killing the intruder.

He spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.

There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.

Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public's right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”

Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about.

“It’s always possible to extrapolate from one case and think that something is happening across the country when it isn’t.”

Mr Blair’s announcement of a review of the law came three days after the Conservative Party threw its weight behind a new parliamentary attempt to win more rights for householders to protect them from burglars.

The Telegraph revealed last weekend how Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, would introduce a Private Member’s Bill to change the law in favour of homeowners.

In an article in this newspaper today, Mr Mercer described Mr Blair’s promise to consult before taking action as a “classic delaying tactic”.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper’s campaign. “I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair’s U-turn,” he said. “We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer’s bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph’s continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this.”

Share/Save

Dear Mr. President,

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

That is all.

Sincerely,

Yuri Orlov

*sigh* I now have absolutely zero respect left for George Bush. I just hope the next person to fill the office shows some leadership and integrity that the current holder lacks, but I’m not optimistic.

Now’s the time to get those “homeland defense” rifles and ammo folks. Come November, the odds of having an outright enemy of the second amendment in office is a real possibility.

God, I’m so depressed right now…

Share/Save

From the ISRA

ISRA Action Alert:
**TOTAL COOK COUNTY GUN BAN CLEARS FIRST HURDLE**

Rabid gun-grabbers on the Cook County Board came one step closer last week
to instituting a total ban on firearm ownership in the county - except for
police and military personnel.

Introduced by Commissioner William Beavers, the so-called “Safe
Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance” appears on the surface to be some
sort of gun registration scheme. However, closer examination reveals that
the only people who could comply with the registration requirements would
be Chicago residents who had previously registered their guns with the
city. Everyone else in Cook County would have to turn in their guns to the
police.

The ordinance would certainly ban all handguns as the ordinance disallows
registration of handguns that do not have a “chamber load”
indicator. Few, if any, handguns could comply with this requirement, so
they would have to be surrendered to the police.

The full text of Beavers’ proposed ordinance may be found here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://www.isra.http://www.ihttp>
To learn more about William Beavers, click this link:

<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>

William Beavers is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. Call him at (312) 603-2065 and
also call his other office at (773) 731-1515 and tell them exactly what
you think of Beavers and his plan to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Another gun-hater on the Cook County Board is Larry Suffredin. Suffredin
has fielded a proposed ordinance that would shut down all gun shops in the
county.
You may read about that ordinance by clicking here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://wwwhttp://www.>

Larry Suffredin is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. For full information on Larry
Suffredin, click this link:
<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>
Call Suffredin at 847-864-1209 and 312-603-6383 and tell them exactly
what you think of Larry Suffredin’s plan to punish law-abiding gun owners.

Even if you don’t live in Cook County, or even if you don’t live in
Illinois for that matter, call anyway. Freedom is at stake here.

In addition to calling these gun-hating stooges, please do the
following:

1. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards of which you
are a member.

2. Send this alert to all your gun owning friends and ask them to call
Beavers and Suffredin too!

Remember - preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights is a cultural
imperative. Gun control is a disease; you are the cure!

Share/Save