The Devil Is in the Details: ...Indeed, the most disturbing thing about the questioning of Clement was not the prospect of incorporation, but of its potential limitations. Said Stevens: "Mr. Clement, would you comment on Justice Kennedy's question about whether it necessarily incorporates every jot and tittle of the Federal right into the Federal, keeping in mind that with regard to trial by jury in criminal cases there is a difference, non-unanimous juries. Why does this incorporation have to be every bit as broad as the Second Amendment itself? He later asked: "...whether it should be just the substance of the right or the - the every detail." For his own part, Chief Justice Roberts seemed eager to enable the "reasonable restrictions" apparently permitted by Heller: "That still allows scope, once you determine that the right is incorporated, for recognizing that the States might have broader interests that the Federal Government doesn't have." And when Feldman allowed that, "This is a right that has always been subject to the political process," Roberts responded: "Well, sure, and it's still going to be subject to the political process if the Court determines that it is incorporated in the Due Process Clause. All the arguments you make against incorporation it seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation under the Second Amendment. We haven't said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller." The Supreme Court seems predisposed to applying the Second Amendment to the states. Some have even speculated the vote will not be the now-typical 5-4 conservative-liberal split, but rather 7-2. What that means for gun laws on the books, however, is far from clear. (And this is before we've ever seen the actual ruling. I'm not aware of any level of the judiciary at which judges rule to reduce future litigation and I have no expectation that the ruling in McDonald will address registration or carry outside the home.) http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d3-McDonald-v-Chicago-Is-incorporation-a-distinction-without-a-difference The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to overturn Chicago's handgun ban in a case gun rights groups plan to use against firearms laws in New York City and nationwide. Mayor Bloomberg and the city chose to sit out the case and did not file a brief with the court supporting President Obama's hometown of Chicago. "We don't expect it to impact on New York laws," a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago. But both gun rights and gun control groups predict a rash of suits [emphasis added] aimed at loosening the city's rules on gun permits... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_justices_taking_aim_at_gun_ban.html If the Supreme Court overturns Chicago's ban on handguns in the city, gun rights advocates say just about every gun law in California, including the state's ban on assault weapons, could be called into question. "They'll all be challenged," said Sam Paredes, executive director of the lobbying group Gun Owners of California, of the state's gun laws. "I would envision that if there are 20,000 regulations, somewhere about 19,500 of them will be challenged in the court system. It will be an amazing thing." ... Among the California gun laws that could be challenged are the state's prohibition on assault weapons, such as the AR-15 and the AK-47. Paredes said the court could hold, on future challenges, that the Second Amendment intends to allow citizens to arm themselves with the weapons used by the military, which would include assault weapons currently outlawed in California. The state's guidelines for allowing local officials to grant concealed-carry weapon permits could also be challenged. City police chiefs and county sheriffs can deny concealed weapon permits for essentially no reason, gun rights advocacy groups say. "If they're going to regulate concealed-carry (permits), then legal, exposed, loaded carrying would have to be allowed in California," said Mike McCurdy, owner of Mike's Discount Guns in Montclair. "That's an argument that's going to be raised." ... (This will depend on how much of the comments the Justices have made find their way into the ruling. In Heller there were signals such as "in common use" and distinctions between keeping a handgun in the home and bearing a concealed handgun in public.) http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14507778?nclick_check=1 During oral arguments this week, U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled their intention to overturn Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban. Still, Mayor Daley isn't giving an inch. In fact, he's ridiculing the high court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms while sitting in a protective bubble. "Why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun," Daley said, his voice dripping with sarcasm... On Wednesday, Daley once again refused to discuss a fallback position. He was too busy arguing the merits - even in the face of almost certain defeat... The D.C. Council subsequently replaced its overturned law with new regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years. That just might be a roadmap Chicago is forced to follow. (One can only hope that if Chicago institutes a training requirement, the ISRA will take steps to ensure that the training is available at nominal cost.) http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2082064,us-handgun-chicago-ban-030310.article ...My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: "McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers' bad ideas, they could disregard it." That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary. Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, "At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms." Expand? Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment's scope. But considering the source... (When quoting the Federalists, one must be aware that they were basically disingenuous in their efforts to "sell" the newly proposed Constitution. Recall that it was Hamilton who suddenly discovered the concept of implied powers, once the Constitution was adopted. Justice Story, who is generally credited with coining the "palladium of liberties" phrase, was definitely a Hamiltonian. That quotation, in full context, is posted at http://www.spw-duf.info/quotes.html; it places great emphasis on the role of the militia.) http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/03/04/second-amendment-still-the-palladium-of-liberties/ ...I wish the Supreme Court would do more than rule the Second Amendment applies to the states. It's long past time the last, ridiculous cobwebs of ambiguity were cleared away from the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control has been simmering on low heat for a while, after boiling over in the Nineties. We should clear it off the Constitutional stove altogether. We have better things to do than slip into another bitter, tedious argument about whether the government can interfere with our right, and duty, to defend ourselves. The notion that citizens have no good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its subjects. The government reduces crime through the police and court systems, but no matter how tirelessly the police work, there is very little chance they can actively defend you from assault. There aren't enough of them, and there never could be. The very areas of privacy that allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft targets for criminals... unless we fortify them ourselves. The police arrived at my house several minutes too late to play a role in my attempted execution. They made excellent time - there happened to be a unit in the area. If things had gone a little different, they might have arrived just in time to avenge me... http://www.doczero.org/2010/03/to-keep-and-bear-arms/ --- Chicago's Pointless Handgun Ban: When Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982, it was part of a trend. Washington, D.C. had done it in 1976, and a few Chicago suburbs took up the cause in the following years. They all expected to reduce the number of guns and thus curtail bloodshed... Maybe that's because there were so many flaws in the basic idea. Or maybe it was because strict gun control makes even less sense at the municipal level than it does on a broader scale. At any rate, the policy turned out to be a comprehensive dud... One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply... Gun control supporters fear that if the Supreme Court invalidates local handgun bans, the consequences will be nothing but bad. That would be easier to believe if the laws had ever done any good. http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/03/04/alice_in_health_care_part_iii?page=full --- NRA Hindered, Did Not Block Sotomayor Confirmation: After the U.S. Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor in August, a debate began over how much influence the National Rifle Association had over the final tally of 68-31. Liberals said the NRA, which opposed Sotomayor, had failed, while conservatives said they were encouraged the gun-rights group even got involved. Gregory Craig, who helped direct the confirmation as White House counsel, said Tuesday that the NRA opposition certainly hurt. "I believe that Justice Sotomayor would have received many, many more votes from Republicans in the Senate if the NRA had not, out of the blue, without any warning, opposed her nomination and, with very little justification whatsoever, made the Senate vote on Sotomayor a pro-gun versus an anti-gun vote," Craig said in a speech at Georgetown University... (So the NRA, out of the blue and without warning opposed her confirmation. As I recall, it was GOA that led that charge, forcing NRA to get involved.) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/gregory-craig-debriefs-on-sotomayor-nomination.html --- Democrats Maneuver to Keep Virginia Purchase Limit: The latest and most significant effort to repeal Virginia's gun laws faces a critical vote on Thursday, when senators will consider a measure that would undo the state's landmark one-gun-a-month law. Democrats, who control the Senate, will try to kill the legislation through a newly formed subcommittee that they stacked with anti-gun lawmakers. Republicans and other gun rights advocates have protested, saying that rules prohibit subcommittees from killing bills; they are demanding a vote by the full Senate Courts of Justice Committee. Republicans are outnumbered there as well, but they hope that enough pro-gun Democrats will join them to vote the measure out of committee. Leaders of both parties are unsure which way a vote would go on the Senate floor. The Republican-controlled House has voted to repeal the law, and Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has said he supports doing away with it. McDonnell voted for the law as a delegate nearly two decades ago but has said recently that advances in background checks make it unnecessary... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303807.html --- Minnesota Could Restrict Gun-Show Transfers: From Virginia to Arizona, federal and state gun laws are loosening everywhere from national parks to Amtrak trains. But in St. Paul, a proposal that would send Minnesota in the opposite direction is headed toward its first hearing Friday - a bill requiring background checks on the purchaser of any firearm sold at a gun show. The proposal pits its DFL sponsor, St. Paul Rep. Michael Paymar, against the mighty arsenal of gun rights advocates and lobbyists who have managed to turn back nearly every effort to tighten Minnesota's gun laws in the past... The protests from gun rights advocates have already begun rolling in. Alexa Fritts, a national spokeswoman for the NRA, has termed Paymar's plan "the first step toward ending gun shows in Minnesota" and will lobby against it. Rep. Paul Kohls, lead Republican on Paymar's committee, said Paymar's bill is "very, very unlikely" to be adopted... (Don't forget that one of the constitutional-carry bills in Arizona was poisoned with an amendment to require citizenship checks by private parties selling firearms, even though state and federal laws recognize the RKBA or permanent resident aliens.) http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/86291022.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU --- Wisconsin Could Tighten Background Checks: The Senate unanimously passed a bill Tuesday mandating mental health information be included in background checks for firearm purchases in Wisconsin. The bill would bring Wisconsin into compliance with current federal law concerning handgun sales, as well as put Wisconsin in the company of many other states that have worked to monitor mental health histories and gun purchases in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007... Wisconsin law does not require background checks through the NICS. Wisconsin handgun vendors must perform a criminal background check through the state Department of Justice that does not necessarily include information on court-ordered mental health treatment or involuntary commitment. Some law enforcement groups see the passage of the bill as a positive step toward better gun control... Others see the bill as furthering the stigma that mental illness and violence go hand in hand... (More than stigma, linking mental-health records to the RKBA may discourage many people from seeking professional help in that field.) http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/03/04/bill_would_require_m.php --- Montana Gun Owners Rally: If anybody was looking to take a constitutional right, or anything else, away from the well-armed folks standing along Hamilton's main drag Wednesday, they might well have been in for a nasty fight. Never mind the impressive arsenal at hand - there was everything from assorted pistols to hunting rifles to a bayoneted 1816 muzzle-loading musket to a PTR 91 .308 caliber assault rifle - a message was on display, brought with intent by the roughly fourscore who lined U.S. Highway 93. The rally placards waved at passing vehicles declared this was a group ready to do battle for the right to own and carry a gun. "Our rights are granted to us by God, not by any human being," said Duane Sipe of Hamilton, owner of the PTR 91. "And no one can take them away. They're called inalienable rights - the Declaration of Independence." ...Mona Docteur, Celebrating Conservatism's treasurer, said 1,000 people, mostly from Ravalli County, had signed the declaration... (While serving as sheriff of Ravalli County, Jay Printz joined with then-sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County AZ in a successful lawsuit against a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.) http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_6b3cb05a-2745-11df-836b-001cc4c03286.html --- Illinois Gun Owners to Rally: The streets of Springfield will be awash in gold March 10th as thousands of law-abiding firearm owners descend on the Capitol to lobby for restoration of their rights. Organizers of the 2010 edition of Illinois Gun Owners' Lobby Day (IGOLD) predict that this year's event will set records for attendance and will further solidify bi-partisan support for gun law reform. This year's event kicks off at 11:45 a.m. with a rally at the Prairie Capitol Convention Center, followed by a march to the Capitol where yet another rally will be held on the Lincoln Steps. From there, attendees - many of whom will be dressed in gold t-shirts and hats - will disperse to visit their Senators and Representatives and attend committee hearings. At 4:00 p.m., participants return to the Prairie Capitol Convention Center for an address by Illinois State Senator Bill Brady. The day will end with a 6:00 p.m. reception at Operating Engineers Local 965 Hall located at 3520 East Cook. Full information on the event, including transportation options, may be found at: http://igold.isra.org/... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/massive-gun-rights-rally-slated-for-illinois-capitol-86190392.html --- Do as I Say, Not as I Do: A report of "supermodel" Naomi Campbell expressing her anger through violence is once more making news. From Kathryn Brown, CBS 2 HD News: "Campbell is accused of slapping her New York City driver. He said she then jumped out of the car and fled." Ah, another rich, powerful celebrity showing enlightened solidarity with the working class. But I said "once more." What's up with that? From Colin Monynihan at The New York Times: "...Naomi Campbell...was charged with assaulting her housekeeper with a telephone...the housekeeper, Ana Scolavino, 41, was struck in the back of the head by the telephone. She was taken to Lenox Hill Hospital, where she received four staples for a gash..." And we learn that was not the first time Campbell has taken her rage out on the help: "In 1998, she was arrested by the police in Toronto and charged with assaulting an assistant." ...Which makes it interesting that Ms. Campbell lent her name to the magazine Marie-Claire's anti-gun efforts, when they "asked celebrities...to join us in our campaign for sensible gun laws." ... http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d3-Should-Naomi-Campbell-push-for-gun-control-or-self-control --- Rule Two Reminder: An Atlanta police recruit was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital on Wednesday morning after shooting himself in the leg at the city's police academy. The shooting happened about 6:40 a.m. at the training academy on Southside Industrial Parkway in southeast Atlanta, according to police dispatchers. Atlanta police spokesman Eric Schwartz said the recruit, whose name has not been released, was cleaning his personal gun in the parking lot of the academy when the weapon accidentally discharged, shooting him in the left leg. He was taken to Grady, where he was in stable condition, Schwartz said. The Atlanta police public affairs unit issued a statement Wednesday afternoon that said the department does not allow recruits to bring weapons onto academy property. An investigation into the incident is being conducted by the police internal affairs unit, the statement said. (Rule Two: Don't let the muzzle cross anything you're not prepared to shoot. Certain pistols, including Glocks, S&W Sigmas and Kahrs, normally require the trigger to be pressed as part of the disassembly process. S&W eliminated that requirement in their M&P pistols with the incorporation of a deactivation lever that must be pressed down, which, in turn, requires that the slide is locked back in the clearing process.) http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/atlanta-police-recruit-shoots-343809.html --- Self-Defense Shooters Motivated by Fear?: ...All of this seems obvious enough to those who train realistically to apply the technology of self-defense to real-life needs. It is apparently lost, however, on Duane Thomas. Mr. Thomas wrote an editorial for the March 2010 issue of The Blue Press (a catalog published by a leading manufacturer of reloading equipment) called "The Martial Gamesman." In it, Mr. Thomas opines that those who "approach skill with a handgun solely for the purpose of self-defense" are in decades-long conflict with those who "approach [handgun shooting] as a sport to be mastered." Using this false and slyly insulting dichotomy as his premise, he goes on to assert that it is "common knowledge that gamesmen on average have a much higher skill level than martial artists." ...Mr. Thomas goes on to claim, outrageously and without substantiation, that most "self-defense-oriented shooters are motivated by fear," while most "competition shooters are motivated by love" and "thus work MUCH harder at it." This is the sort of reasoning used by the leftists, the liberals, the Democrats who hold self-defense and firearms ownership in contempt. It says, "Those who engage in my sport are good, while those who do not share my interest in my sport are inferior." ... http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126812 --- From AzCDL: We are expecting SB 1168 to be scheduled on the Senate Committee of the Whole (COW) agenda for Thursday, March 4, 2010. SB 1168 strengthens state firearms preemption laws, adds firearms storage and accessories to the list of things political subdivisions cannot regulate, and removes the prohibition on carrying a firearm in public parks without a CCW permit. Please contact your Senator urging them to support SB 1168 during the COW debate. A letter has been prepared and is waiting for you at our Action Center: http://capwiz.com/azcdl/issues/alert/?alertid=14753896 . If you haven't already done so, please send a message to the Senate Appropriations Committee members reminding them to support the amended SB 1108 (Constitutional Carry), which is on their Friday agenda. A direct link to your letter is here: http://capwiz.com/azcdl/issues/alert/?alertid=14750316 . Stay tuned! When critical legislation moves, we will notify you via these Alerts. If you want to get legislative news as it happens, follow AzCDL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/AzCDL_Alerts . AzCDL "tweets" from the Capitol with committee votes and breaking news as it happens. You can also follow AzCDL on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/FacebookAzCDL . AzCDL's Political Action Committee (PAC) is also on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/FacebookAzCDLPAC . These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Renew today! http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html . AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html . Copyright © 2010 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved. -- Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. The tactics and skills to use a firearm in self-defense don't come naturally with the right to keep and bear arms. http://www.spw-duf.info .