Extremism Means No Liberty

At least when the government decides you're an extremist, anyway. So if the government decides, based on some nebulous and ever changing set of standards, you are a possible threat, no 2nd Amendment for you!

If this doesn't disturb anyone, I'll just advise you to research how much fun it's been for people on the no fly list to find out WTF is going on.

Officer Safety

So, if anybody ever wants to know why it might be a good idea to carry your own firearm, I've got a ready answer.

One receptionist was killed, while the other, shot in the abdomen, pretended to be dead and then crawled under a desk and called 911, he said.

Police said they arrived within two minutes.

Not bad response time, right? Okay so far.

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.

Hmm. And all the people inside the building? Well, fuck them, I guess. Officer safety for the FAIL. People often wonder why some of us hold the opinion cops are there to fill out paperwork and clean up the mess. Gee, I dunno. Wherever might we have gotten that idea?

Fuck the ACLU

Apparently, the CL in ACLU only stands for civil liberties they like. The ACLU has always been disinterested about the 2nd Amendment, but their press release on Heller demonstrates to me they're openly hostile at the national level. I can think of no other court decision protecting an individual right the ACLU would describe as creating a "constitutional straitjacket". So, screw 'em. They go in the bucket with the Joyce Foundation and all the other hoplophobes until repeated and demonstrated action indicates they're sincere in their understanding and commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.

The Candidates Weigh In

The presidential candidate of choice around these parts has weighed in with his opinion on today's ruling. Of course, since he wrote the LP amicus brief for the case, I think we can guess which side he was on.

Everybody's favorite reading comprehension impaired candidate issued a statement hilarious for the lack of self awareness it displays. Two gems:

Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

So, we can expect a bipartisan assault on gun rights cosponsored by Sen. McCain when, exactly?

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

True enough. You're still a Senator, so there's work yet to be done on that front.

The asshat who locked up the donk nomination has yet to release a statement. It'll be hard for him to reconcile his statement that the DC law was constitutional with the fact the Supreme Court said it ain't. Some constitutional scholar he is.

We Won!

So, for once and for all, I'd kindly like everybody to have a nice cup of STFU about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

For the clueless here, the prefatory clause is the part about "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free state". The operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Anybody who ever said the militia clause meant restrictions on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms can now eat a bowl of dicks. SCOTUS says you're wrong.

Now, can we get those people to admit the 4th means something?

Not Yet Time

Everyone expects the Heller decision to be released today, so y'all will pardon me if I sit around clicking refresh every couple of minutes instead of doing something useful.

Soon Enough

The Supreme Court is busily handing out opinions for the cases heard in the 2007 session. 4 came out yesterday, and 22 remain. In the remaining cases one is of particular interest around here. I refer, of course, to District of Columbia v. Heller, which centers on the 2^nd Amendment. While the court cogitates, here’s an interview with the lead attorney for the case.

I am, like the rest of the hardcore RKBA community, awaiting the decision impatiently. I don’t think we’ll get everything we’d like, but I don’t think we’ll get fucked over either. A sort of unhappy medium will be reached, despite Obamarama’s contention that DC’s gun laws are constitutional. They’re not, and a guy who is supposedly a “constitutional scholar” should know what the actual document says. Of course, running against him is a guy who has spent his entire adult life sworn to uphold and defend a document he has apparently never read.

On that note, have you considered an alternative to either one of the donkelphant nominees this fall?

CHL Lecture

So I was in municipal court yesterday, because I’m a lazy scofflaw. While I was there, the nice officer who serves as the bailiff was going over the rules of the court. The part that perked my ears up was when he mentioned CHLs and knives. I’m paraphrasing here, but his speech was essentially they aren’t allowed in the courtroom, so if you have them, take them back out to your car now. He followed up with the old “if I see them, it’ll be unpleasant” speech we’ve all heard at least once.

I find this a little bit odd since concealed carry in a courtroom is supposed to be a felony for us reg’lar folks. Of course, since I live in a dinky little town, court is held in the municipal auditorium. I don’t know if that affects the legalities in any way. It might not technically be a court until court is in session since it’s a multi-function venue? I dunno. Still, I thought it was an awfully laid back attitude to take about the issue.

18 and Loaded

Yay! Once again, somebody has validated my prediction almost immediately. Yesterday, I mentioned the continuing infantilization of young adults. Today, SayUncle steps up to the plate and tries to knock one out of the park about how young adults are irresponsible asshats and not to be trusted.

Some folks are blaming the college for banning CCW holders from carrying there. Could have a point but the facts are that most college kids are just that: kids. Eighteen, nineteen and twenty year-olds can’t lawfully carry anyway. And, honestly, who wants a bunch of kids who are away from their home for the first time and who (like I did in college) are probably consuming a bit too much of, well, anything strapped? Armed staff is a better sell and, honestly, is probably a bit more responsible. Not to say that all college kids are irresponsible but that your average 18-20 something probably isn’t the best candidate for packing heat.

Hmm. Let me see, let me see. Can I think of a group of young adults in the 18 to 20 range that contradict the assertion? Hmmm. 18-20, away from home for the first time, packing heat. I’ve got it! How about these guys? Then there’s this fine group.

Now I don’t definitively know that any of the fine paratroopers and marines pictured are under the age of 20. However, I am completely certain that there is a fair number elsewhere under the age of 20 and toting loaded weapons on a daily basis.

Enough snark. My larger point remains. Either college students are adults and can be trusted with the rights and responsibilities of adulthood or they are not. We let them vote, we let them volunteer for service, but then we turn around and say “No pistol or CCW for you! You’re too irresponsible!” It is, quite frankly, bullshit. It stinks of half-measures to appease morons who don’t ever want their precious little babies to grow up and are incapable of realizing they have. Will some morons abuse the privilege? Yes. Is that a reason to inflict further nanny-state measures on everybody else? No.

I also disagree with SayUncle’s assertion that “everything has changed”. Things will only change for the worse if we, collectively, let them. Quit assuming it’s a foregone conclusion that more asinine laws will be passed because of the incident.

You, Yourself

I am, as I’m sure most of you are, saddened to hear that some whack-job decided to take out his frustrations on other people at Virginia Tech yesterday. The comment was made that we should not use the opportunity to try to score cheap political points, or more poetically, don’t dance in the blood of the dead. I figure that’s still good advice, although the people who push gun control as a solution haven’t really restrained themselves. Nor, I am sure, have some people on my side of the issue.

Me? I got no political points today that you can’t find elsewhere. Gun control failed, so the usual suspects will propose more gun control. Rational thinking is not going to be a part of the coming debate. Instead, we’ll continue with the infantilization of young adults by saying something needs to be done to protect the students. Given that I was in the Army at 17, I have this funny idea the students are adults and therefore have the obligation and ability to protect themselves.

Segueing neatly into my next point, if you depend on the police for protection you are a fool. The police cannot be everywhere all the time. They can only respond to a situation once it starts. Until they show up, you’re on your own. It seems to me that placing the campus on lockdown, while useful for maintaining order and making the cops’ job easier, did nothing to protect the greater population of Virginia Tech. Here’s where the “you are responsible” meme comes in. If it occurs to you that sitting passively and waiting for danger to come closer might be a bad plan, do something about it. Mount up and clear the AO by any means necessary. You are ultimately responsible for your own safety. Not me, not the cops, not a university, not the government. If your assessment of the situation means disregarding what some authority figure tells you, ignore them and do what you have to do.

More Elected Asshats

Back when I wrote my representative, HR 1022 had no co-sponsors. In the meantime, it's picked up quite a few. 33 congresscritters have signed on to restrict your constitutional rights, to be precise. We all know now that the rules are apparently different for said congresscritters. To be fair, that was a senatorial-type critter, but the principle holds. I can't see why I should vote for a congresscritter that wants to remove my rights while granting themselves special privileges. Can you? Well, if one of the following people represents you, you might drop them a line informing them of your opinion.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1]
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14]
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16]
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18]
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8]
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29]
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28]
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10]
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8]
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20]
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]

I note my representative isn't on the list, but he's been a little preoccupied lately. We'll see what happens when he recovers.

What Now?

The DC Circuit Court has ruled on Parker v. District of Columbia. I think a short quote is in order here:

The court held that the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

I also note with some pleasure the decision references both Judge Kozinski’s dissent in Silviera v. Lockyer and Eugene Volokh’s writing on the 2nd Amendment.

I realize the District may yet appeal the case (your tax dollars at work!) and SCOTUS may pull something completely different out of the collective bunghole of the court system (see, for instance, Gonzales v. Raich or McConnell v. FEC). In the meantime, the Second Amendment secures an individual right. So, all you collective rights gun banning people over at the Brady Center and the Joyce Foundation: what now, bitches?

If you're interested, more commentary by people with actual law degrees can be found over at the Conspiracy.

Side note: The dissent appears to rely (from my cursory reading) on the curious notion that the District is not a State, so the Second Amendment does not apply. Uhh, what? That has to be one of the more interesting interpretations I've seen lately.