Saturday, March 10, 2007

Yeah, baby!

I was feeling so crappy yesterday I had to go to the doctor, and he diagnosed a rampant sinus infection. I came home, slept the rest of the day and never checked my email. I wish I had, because I would have felt so much better. The NRA-ILA has sent me a message:

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."

Take that, you illegitimate spawn of the devil gun grabbing Brady scum.

Now while I've got the knife in between their ribs, let's twist it a bit. Oh hell, let's twist it a lot. Direct quote from the majority opinion:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

In one wonderful paragraph, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has acknowledged the following:
  • The Second Amendment secures an individual right
  • The right existed before there was a US Constitution
  • That the right to keep and bear arms "was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)" (KA-CHING!)
  • There is a civic purpose for a militia
  • That the Federalists incorporated the Second Amendment to make the Constitution more acceptable to the Anti-Federalists (Another KA-CHING!)
  • And last but far from least, that the right is not contingent either the existence of a militia or an individuals enrollment in a militia
Brothers and sisters, can I get an AMEN! The only other thing we could have asked for was where the limits are drawn--grenades, automatic weapons, mortars or what? (Personally, I think a Bradley IFV would look great in the driveway.)

Now before we all paint ourselves blue and do a Kim du Toit happy dance in our front yards, let's throw some cold water on ourselves. First, bet your life that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court. The battle is not over by a long shot, and the Supremes would rule against us on appeal. I think it unlikely, but it's possible, and we shouldn't dismiss that.

There is also the fact that even if we win at a Federal level, the fight will have to be carried on in the many States that do not have something similar to the wording of the Second Amendment in their Constitution. The nature of those fights and how they will be fought can't be seen at this point.

And of course, there are those who would, through participation in international treaties, such as the UN Convention on Small Arms, attempt to end-run the Constitution.

The fight continues, but we are winning. Take a minute and pat yourselves on the back.

(Edit 3/10/2007 1139: David Hardy, who is much more up on the legal system than I, has this to say.)

Friday, March 09, 2007

Anyone surprised?

(Via Drudge)

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, underreporting for three years how often it forced businesses to turn over customer data, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Why, I may rise to the level of flabbergasted!

If anyone is surprised by this, you haven't read your recent American history. The FBI has something of a habit of such actions.

Now for the fun, spin and butt-covering part of the story:

The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.

Well, nice to know you can have illegal activity without criminal misconduct. What a crock.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Busy, busy, busy

Like has gotten hectic, but not so hectic that I don't have time to put this news from Grass Roots NC in front of you.

Remember our gun grabber friend Sen. Julia Bozeman, author of several bills to infringe on our Second Amendment freedoms? Well, it's not enough for her to try to repeal the concealed carry law for real guns. (Well, she doesn't want to actually repeal it, you understand. She just want to make the list of off-limits place so long that the law is worthless. Just like her.) Oh no, my friends, now she wants to make it against the law for kids to carry concealed toy guns.

The dangerous thing about this is that it makes a sort of twisted sense. A kid, especially a teenager, carrying some of the AirSofts I've seen, could be mistaken for someone up to no good.

However, it's a bad law, because it makes no differentiation between innocent kids' playing in their backyard and Joe Gangsta-Wannabe down in the hood who is out to make someone think he has a real gun. It creates another law where enforcement is left open to the interpretation and discretion (or lack thereof) of police and prosecutors. Given some of their recent actions in this state, I'm not comfortable with that, and you shouldn't be, either.

Tell Sen. Bozeman to go back to the drawing board and try again. Her contact information is here.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Not what you need on a Sunday morning

Gun Glut

No, not the kind a gunny would like to see--lot of interesting guns at low prices. This is the liberal/progressive/whatever sort of gun glut:

There are too many handguns in circulation, and these weapons must be more tightly regulated.

OK, there's a back story. A Winston Salem police officer, Sgt. Howard Plouff, was shot and killed in the line of duty. A wife and family are left behind. The whole thing stinks, and emotions are, as you'd expect, running high.

However, rather than reporting on the story, the gun grabbers at the Winston Salem Journal are using it in an attempt to move forward their anti-gun agenda. Here are a few of the predictable quotes:

No doubt, people would keep on killing under tighter handgun regulations, but the number of killings would almost certainly drop.

...does any one person need that many handguns?

There should be tighter regulations limiting the number of handguns a person can buy in a single month.

And of course, the ever popular

We’re all for the Second Amendment, especially as it pertains to sporting arms, whether for uses such as target practice or hunting.

But that does not mean that there should be no restrictions; most people, for example, have no good reason to own an assault rifle that is designed to kill a number of people quickly.

Yeah, we all know exactly how wrong they are, but we're going to have to tell them. I could use your help on my little project. At the bottom of the page, there is a place where you can comment. You may do so with some anonymity, but of course, bet that your IP address is logged. If you decide to post, please remember the entire situation, and word your reply with some care.