The LA Times (of all places) has a pretty decent read on the Bush DOJ arguing that 1) there is an individual right but 2) supporting DC:

In their legal battle over gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, gun- control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.

But that’s just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld.

The feds here simply are trying to keep their federal gun laws in tact. They realize that someone, upon a favorable ruling in Heller, will challenge other gun laws. And they are trying to prevent that. After all, it’s their job to support their laws. So, with that, you can’t really fault them much. It could have been worse. After all, here’s some folks from the Clinton administration pushing the collective rights mythology.

I think this may lead to some sort of talks of a federal pre-emption.

David Kopel notes some disappointment.

Here’s a list of pleadings.

Sebastian lays out the next moves.

One police officer death in a year apparently represents a trend. Also, it should be noted (since this is what they’re getting at) is that neither the MAK-90 nor the WASR-10 used in crimes were covered under the ban on weapons that look like assault weapons.

Kevin’s on a TSA list. Ya know, after the federales paid me a visit, I thought for sure I’d be on the list. But I’m not.

Sadcox:

It’s funny. They keep calling it a “driver’s license,” but they never mention anything about driving.

Also, if you’re over 50, it doesn’t apply to you.

Via MCB.

So, Rep. Stacey Campfield proposed a bill that said, basically, if a legislator is convicted of drunk driving then that legislator cannot vote on bills that have to do with drunk driving. This was in response to one our politicos, Briley, getting arrested, acting like a raving lunatic, and damaging a police car. It was all caught on tape too.

Anyway, people are not pleased with the bill. Michael Silence says With all due respect, sir, that’s stupid. Nathan Moore calls it the most asinine legislation imaginable.

Personally, I dig it. Here’s why. See, when our politicos are busy using their time and (unfortunately) our money to screw over eachother, then that is time not spent screwing over citizens.

Excellent post here.

Careful, they can be machine guns:

“If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT. I guess we know now what Sen. Kennedy meant when he said he looked forward to working with [Acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director] Mike Sullivan on Gun control issues, after his committee approved him for full Senate vote,” Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC, said in a blog.

Details at Rich’s.

Well, I agree with the latter . . . the former, not so much.

Gun egg fryers.

In an update to this, the officers have been fired.

Rep. Eric Cantor has started a petition regarding Heller:

Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General filed formal briefs asking the Supreme Court not to affirm the lower court’s decision. This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights.

They have a video here.

Glenn and Helen interview Rudy 9iu11iani. First question is about the second amendment. Rudy says he wouldn’t sign any new gun control laws if he thought they were unconstitutional.

Over at Right Side of the Rainbow, word is we’re all emotional and that Bush isn’t betraying gun owners:

You could say that the administration hasn’t gone far enough in defending gun rights. But I don’t think you can fairly say that the administration has betrayed gun rights.

Read it all.

I disagree. Somewhat. See, the brief supports the proper interpretation of the amendment but leaves open regulation of particularly dangerous types of firearms, including certain types of handguns. That’s an awful big hole. As I said here, They say it’s an individual right but, you know, not really. Now, it can be revised to They say it’s an individual right until they decide it’s not.

Update 2: I guess the more accurate summary is We support the right to keep and bear arms but we like the current infringements on that right.

The Bush DOJ, which reversed decades of policy by adopting the individual rights view of the second amendment, has decided to screw over gun owners in Heller. They say it’s an individual right but, you know, not really.

Update: Yeah, betrayed does cover it.

Speaking of Heller and since the .gov is using your dollars to advocate revocation of your rights, go donate to the good guys at Academics for the Second Amendment who are filing a brief.

Update 2: If I were Thompson, I’d hammer this one home next time I discussed how the Republicans were really just pro-life liberals.

Update 3: Odd that the mostly historically anti-gun American Hunters And Shooters Association is filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to protect the rights of individuals consistent with original intent of the Constitution.

Update 4: I received a statement from NRA:

Statement of the National Rifle Association by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox on the pending U.S. Supreme Court case:

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process

And more at Joe’s, who notes:

If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms.

That article I and others criticized by Bernd Debusmann for taking dictation from The Violence Policy Center seems to have disappeared. It has now re-appeared here with the caveat: Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own

Heh. First, it was news. Now it’s opinion. Funny that.

Via Free Constitution.

Good:

Mr. Bloomberg spent the day sitting for a deposition in a civil lawsuit, the first time he has done so as mayor. The defamation case against the mayor was brought by a South Carolina gun salesman who claims the mayor spoke ill of him in the press. The deposition lasted the entire workday, and the topics ranged from Mr. Bloomberg’s views on the Second Amendment to whether he intended to run for president.

Indeed.

And, I might add, another addition to the chicks and guns meme.

Via Michael Silence, who notes: Hey, we’re rated higher than Congress. So, what’s your point?

What’s the difference?

The Lima Police Swat Team had a rather frightening web page showing a ninja shooting at you. They’ve taken it down but Google Cache is forever. See cache here. Also, fodder notes their anti-gun activism.

Update and bump: Seems there may be another reason they removed the ninja popping a cap from the main page:

Jennifer Brindisi, a spokesman for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, said federal agents are working with the agency to determine how Tarika Wilson, 26, was shot to death and her 14-month-old son, Sincere Wilson, wounded during the Friday night raid at their East Third Street home. She said the FBI likely will examine the case for possible civil-rights violations as well.

Update 2: Note the ninja image is still on their server (here) but removed from the page. I’ve saved it for reference:

Though in comments, Standard Mischief points out that using the image, like the SWAT page did, may violate copyrights.

Update 3: putting image below the fold because, man, is it annoying:
Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin notes that the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passed the house. And no one wants to talk about it. The bill:

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

So, how long before someone like me, who is known for perpetuating his radical views, shows up on a list? But I have nothing to worry about:

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Well, that’s a relief.

I’ve mentioned this act before. Past coverage of potential terrorists here, here, here, here, here and here.

On a bill introduced in VA to allow lawful CCW holders to carry on campus, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership breaks out the hysteria:

But Gilbert’s bill is a bad idea and would cost lives, according to Brian J. Siebel, senior attorney with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

College students often drink heavily and sometimes use illegal drugs and engage in other risky behavior, Siebel said. A number of college students also attempt suicide.

“If you introduce guns into that setting, you’re going to wind up with more dead college students,” he said. Nor will requiring permits to carry on campus keep alcohol and guns separated.

“People who are binge drinkers can still get CCW licenses in the state of Virginia,” he said.

Well, I guess they shouldn’t have automobiles either. Note, this legislation doesn’t actually, you know, arm anyone. It allows holders of CCW permits to carry on campuses. And this is your PSH of the week:

“Had Mr. Gilbert’s law gone through [in 2006] and [the Virginia Tech shooter] had gone out and applied for a concealed carry license in order to bring guns legally onto campus, the state of Virginia would have given him a license,” Siebel said.

Cho could have gotten a permit? Well, no, actually.

Update: Ahab has more.

David Kopel reports that the bogus lawsuit against gun manufacturers in DC has been dismissed.

Remember yesterday when I told you that the press was likely taking dictation from The Violence Policy Center? Well, turns out the study that both the press and the Violence Policy Center relied on to assert that gun ownership was down was done by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC). Guess who has funded NORC? Why, our old pals at the Joyce Foundation, who have a long history of funding anti-gun shills.

Update: And the reporter, Bernd Debusmann, has an interesting, err, philosophy.

Update 2: Kim calls BS:

U.S. population in 1980: 226.5 million. (Census)

So if that number of 54% gun owners in 1977 is correct, that would mean… there were over 100 million gun owners in the U.S. back then?

I wish. We’re only getting up to that number now.

Update 3: What I did yesterday, Kevin did back in May

I received an email from the NSSF in response to Citi’s non-denial denial about their policy of prohibiting credit card transactions involving firearms among dealers:

January 10, 2008

Dear XXXXX

This is to confirm the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s receipt of your e-mail response on behalf of First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, concerning First Data and Citi Merchant’s unilateral decision to stop processing credit card transactions involving the lawful sale of firearms by law-abiding, federally-licensed, firearms distributors/retailers. Regrettably, your e-mail serves to confirm the anti-gun corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that the article in our publication “Bullet Points,” and subsequent posting to our Website, was based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy as articulated in the December 26, 2007, letter to Mr. Charlie Crawford at CDNN Sports Inc.

We had hoped to hear from First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services that this was not your corporate policy and that the letter was merely the ill-considered actions of a single employee.

Your anti-gun corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of firearms. It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one state to sell a firearm to a non-licensee (consumer) from another state. What you fail to appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer who is purchasing the firearm. The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in a face-to-face transaction after completion of a Firearms Transaction Record, commonly referred to as an ATF Form 4473, and a federally-mandated background check to ensure that the purchaser is legally permitted to buy the firearm.

Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only law-abiding Americans, but military and law enforcement agencies as well.

June Rivera-Mantilla’s original correspondence contained so many errors that one could only deduce that it was an uniformed mistake that would consequently be corrected. Instead, we learned yesterday that First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services stands behind the policy, which affects not only firearms retailers, manufacturers and distributors, but also law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels of government and law-abiding citizens.

NSSF will not remove its Web posting nor will we rescind or alter our story. However, if we receive written confirmation from you that, after having researched the law, First Data and Citi Merchant Services have changed their corporate policy, we will consider publishing that fact in a follow-up story.

Sincerely,

Jake McGuigan
Director of Government Relations

Ted Novin
Director of Public Affairs

What is not a machine gun this week may be next week, if the ATF happens to feel like it. Once again, the ATF is going after people for not breaking the law. Not the first time they’ve been caught deceiving in an effort to get a conviction.

Not sure what it is.

Tavor.

Sigarms P229.

What a waste! Art made from firearms.

May be some changes to the CCW law there. Joe has the scoop.

Good to know about DDs:

the FFL is for someone who is IN THE BUSINESS of manufacturing ammo(for a DD or whatever). If you are simply loading your own 40mm chalk rounds or 75mm shells(non explosive of course) you don’t need any kind of license.

What’s a DD? Glad you asked.