John Lott has a piece on the issue.

Not smart:

It may have started as a goofy stunt, but tonight a 30 year old Red Wing area man is in hot water with authorities, after detonating a powerful bomb in back of his home yesterday afternoon. “When you can take a steel box, a dump truck box, turn it into scrap metal and send it 1/4 mile away… that’s a bomb,” reasoned Goodhue County Sheriff Dean Albers, whose detectives are investigating the case.

I doubt it’s illegal but it’s not smart.

Heh.

Xrlqy Wrlqy:

Rather than worry about that relatively minor detail, worry about the big picture: will the Supreme Court affirm the individual right to bear arms at all?

Wow:

A Baltimore County gun dealer charged with illegally providing weapons to a man who died in a firefight with police last year received today a five-year suspended prison sentence and one year of probation.

Sanford M. Abrams entered an Alford plea in Baltimore County Circuit Court, in which he did not admit guilt but conceded that the state has enough evidence to convict him. The judge then entered a guilty plea for unlawfully selling a restricted firearm.

The plea marked the latest, and potentially the most serious, chapter in the long legal saga of Abrams, the former National Rifle Association national board member stripped of his license by federal agents nearly two years ago for failing to keep track of hundreds of weapons in his shop’s inventory.

Past coverage here.

Never too cute to kick some ass.

AR-15. Only, it’s a paintball guns. Looks pretty slick.

Of course, for the price, you can build your own real AR-15.

Clayton Cramer needs help:

So do your part: help me find every review these fifteen historians wrote of Arming America!

Remember Christian Trejbal? You know, the guy that published a list of handgun carry permit holders in VA at the Roanoke Times? Then, he shit his pants because he thought some mailing labels were a bomb, obviously terrified we gun nuts were out to kill him. And whose actions resulted in the VA AG cutting off access to the data? Yeah, that guy.

Well, some more good has come out of his dumb ass stunt:

Any and all information about Virginia residents who hold concealed handgun permits would be off-limits to the public under a bill sponsored by a local legislator.

Del. Beverley Sherwood, R-Winchester, is the chief patron of House Bill 843, which would close both electronic and hard copies of the records.

The new restrictions on the information are necessary because some people who have a good reason to get a permit also have a good reason to hide their personal information, Sherwood said.

And the article notes that as well:

Two other newspapers took similar actions in the following months — The Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., and the Sandusky Register in Ohio. Elected officials in the Volunteer and Buckeye states are either considering or have enacted new restrictions on the information.

Had The Roanoke Times not put the database online, there would be no move to close off the information, Sherwood said. Sherwood is the chairwoman of the House committee that will hold initial hearings on the bill.

Because you’re on the wrong side:

In arguing that the Second Amendment case now before the Supreme Court shouldn’t have any bearing on state gun control laws, Attorney General Cuomo is finding himself largely alone among state attorneys general.

Mr. Cuomo filed a brief, signed onto by only four other states and Puerto Rico, to the federal high court last week in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will be heard in March. In the case, the Supreme Court will review whether Washington, D.C., residents have a right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns at home for self-protection. The District of Columbia has what amounts to a blanket ban on handguns.

Of note: Mr. Cuomo’s brief is, in effect, an effort to limit any damage to the relatively strict handgun regulations in New York and some other states that might result from a Supreme Court decision favoring private gun ownership.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah.

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?