A few common phrases in the English language come from firearms usage. I, of course, use the one that sounds dirty. Ahab discusses gun-induced grammar.

If you’re in Knoxville this weekend and want to go make fun of some hippies, they’ll be congregating. If, like me, you have errands to run in that general area and wish to keep them away, I recommend some Hippie Repellent.

Update: More here. And if you’re not a fan of the prior hippie repellent, here’s an environmentally friendly alternative.

Salt Lake Tribune:

College students can now opt for a gun-free environment

Actually, no they cannot. See, some folks don’t obey the law or the rules. If those folks choose to introduce a gun into your supposed gun-free environment, there’s no way to stop them.

In the event you ever decide to break into my home, bring a balloon.

Politically Incorrect Dog has some rather odd idiosyncrasies. One of those is that he is terrified of balloons. If you wish to keep him out of a room, put a balloon in it. Or you can keep him confined by placing balloons in doorways.

In the event he can’t avoid balloons and is in their proximity, he tucks his tail, ears down, and issues a low growl while staring at it. All traits of a spooked pup.

Since we have kids, we’re now buying a lot more balloons than before so he’s having a rough time.

Just find it odd, is all.

Via Ben, I learn of two taxpayer groups in my fair county.

Citizens for Better Government

Citizens for Blount County’s Future: They don’t have a website that I have found. But they get some Google love. If they want a website, have them shoot me a line. I’ll set it up and host it.

PGP has the latest.

Standard Mischief notes that the NRA has put all the Katrina gun confiscation videos on YouTube. Good.

Freedom from information:

Congress members routinely herald the Freedom of Information Act as a pry bar for the press and public to lift the lid on secretive government operations, sometimes exposing fraud and always buttressing the spirit of transparency.

That agent of access, however, is stopped at the doors of Congress — which exempted itself from the very law it passed 41 years ago to keep the executive branch in check.

As federal agencies labor to respond to thousands of requests for documents each year, Congress returns none.

And don’t ask to look in their freezers either.

Jay G, who posts some times at the site formerly known as NGD and now Toys in the Attic, has started his own blog about being trapped in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

Bitter had her gun seized in Texas, of all places. She has it back though.

She’s on to us again:

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told Democrats Tuesday the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” is back, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan criticism.

Of course, since we’re openly recruiting, it’s not surprising.

Seen at Radley’s:

The city’s SWAT team, along with celebrity cops and camera crews from Armed & Famous, broke into the wrong home during a search for two fugitives and kept an innocent woman handcuffed for 30 minutes, according to legal documents.

Oops, wrong house . . . again.

Late in a tourney, five players. I’m the big stack. I’m in late position. I get:

K♣Q♣

I raise it up to three times the big blind. Two callers. Flop:

2♣ 4♥ Q♦

A caller (the short stack – I have at least 20 times his stack) minimum raises. Though the small stack, he’s in no danger of being blinded out yet. Other player folds. Action to me and I think he has a good hand and figure we’re in a kicker war. I put him all in. He flips over 4♦ 2♦. I catch a queen on the river and win. He says: Nice suck out. I say Yeah, but I didn’t call a pre-flop raise with deuce four.

I did suck out. But, ferrchrissakes, who calls a raise with 4♦ 2♦? Even as a short stack, there are better hands to make a move with.

You know it’s big when Matt comes out of semi-retirement to opine:

“Republican appointee” does not necessarily mean “pro-individual right.” It frequently means “statist.” Judge Henderson, the dissenter in Parker, is a Bush I appointee.

I think any appointee is generally a statist. That’s how they get the job.

Will the Supreme Court take the case? One aye. one nay.

My thoughts: coin flip, with a sleight favorite to yes.

People keep pointing out that there is now a divide among the circuits. Well, there has been since Emerson, which concluded there was an individual right to arms. The Supreme Court didn’t take it then. But now we have some new judges and one of those (the chief justice) understands Miller. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, the opposition lies and misleads.

The antis are spinning this one as hard as they can. I think I know why: It’s dangerous now. Years ago, if this case made it to the SCOTUS, I don’t think they’d have upheld individual rights. Today, I think they might (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, & Thomas are likely yays – and surely they could pick up one more).

Pro-Gun Progressive concurs:

Seems they’re really angling for the SCOTUS showdown. I’m not entirely uncomfortable with the idea; while I part ways with Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas on a lot of issues, I have to think we’re in good shape with those four votes re: the RKBA.

Publicola has some issues with Parker.

Michael Silence is all-Fred-all-the-time in an effort to get Fred Thompson to run for prez. I share Tam’s sentiment:

Fred Thompson, former Senator from TN, is no libertarian, but compared to McCain or Giuliani (or Dubya, for that matter) he looks like Ronald Reagan. Pro-trade, pro-business, fairly hawkish, and socially conservative; if you liked the Eighties GOP, presumably you could vote for Fred and get seconds.

You know, from back when Republicans were cool and not when they were just Democrats who cater to the God Squad?

I mentioned Tennessee’s pending dog laws here. The charming bizgrrl is none too happy with one of them:

In her ten years of existence she [pupster – ed] has escaped 3 or 4 times. I cannot imagine being arrested for such a misdeed. Neither of us have never been arrested for anything. I think this is just a step too far.

I suppose my next step is to ask what problem resulted in the introduction of this bill. And, hey, if dogs then why not cats? They can do damage too. I jest. Just because there is a bad bill does not mean we need to make it worse.

It does seem excessive. But Cats can do damage.

The Roanoke Times:

A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits

Then, they post a list of them noting:

You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun

I’m sure someone will post addresses and phone numbers of the editorial staff of the paper. They always do.

Update: list seems gone now.

Update: List is there.

Update: Unsurprisingly, someone found the reporter’s address and posted it in comments at The Roanoke Times’ blog. Even more unsurprising is that the comments have disappeared.

See here. I actually know three ways. I used to work in a prison and, when bored, we’d sit around and figure this stuff out. Of the three ways, one is the method in that video; one involves possibly breaking your wrist and it only works on S&W handcuffs; and the third is, well, I carry a key with me.

I can also start a fire using a commercial dryer; make a nasty alcoholic beverage out of fruit juice; light a smoke using an outlet and a pencil; and make a tattoo gun out of a Sony Walkman motor.

You never know.

Sharp as a marble:

Floppy disks? Why not put the *&#!% things on an 8-track?

Round up of stupidery*:

Helmke:

The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports

The NYT takes dictation from Helmke.

Sugarmann: Court to DC: Handguns for All!

The WaPo uses words like dangerous and radical. And my fave: this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded. What media bias?

Good times, good times.

* Yes, I’m making up words. Their comments aren’t quite stupid because they’re intentional. But they are hackery.

Met Bitter and Sebastian this weekend. Charming couple. Sebastian was rather quiet, which surprised since he won’t shut up on his blog. Apparently, the couple met via the comments section here at SayUncle. SayUncle: matchmaker.

Speaking of charming couples, Glenn and Helen were there. Helen discusses meeting other bloggers.

As an added bonus, the insta-couple bought me lunch.

There was much discussion of Parker and gun rights.

Since Sebastian is gone, he has a stripper pinch-hitting for him.

Gun blogger ColtCCO has moved. And has also started blogging again. And was on the TeeVee.

Doing them today. Feh. Waste of a nice, warm Sunday. Fuckers.

Update: Wow. First time I’ve gotten a refund in years and years. I was amazed and didn’t know why. Then it occurred to me that I did spend the first half of the year unemployed. Guess that explains it.

On the Hughes amendment:

If it does, I defy you to show how a different result would obtain if you subsituted “fully-automatic weapon” for “pistol,” “1986″ for “1976,” and “Congress” for “the District.” Make these mechanical changes and voila, the Hughes Amendment is history, any post-1986 assault weapons (real ones, not just the phony ones Clinton banned in 1994) are legal in every state that allows them, and your M-16 is worth only a trifle more than my AR-15.

Guess who:

The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia.

Bleat, bleat.

Lies in bold.

John Lott says of the recent Parker decision This is actually a very high risk gamble.

It is, indeed. We could lose at the Supreme Court. Game over.

We could win. Everyone rejoices.

Further, even a win might not be a win. I simply cannot see the Supreme Court overturning 73 years of federal gun laws. The lifting of some regulations just doesn’t seem to be politically feasible with the gun hysteria we see.

The ban on machine guns: In 1934, the $200 tax essentially prohibited all but the wealthy from obtaining them. In the 1980s, the tax was just a nuisance. In 1986, new transfer was banned. These weapons do relate to the preservation and efficacy of a well-regulated militia. There is enough meat to eliminate the ban. But the court simply will not do it, I don’t think.

Regulation of destructive devices: These are not banned but regulated. Are they arms that relate to the preservation and efficacy of a well-regulated militia? Most certainly, as soldiers carry grenades. Again, I can’t see the court overturning that.

Suppressors: though gaining in popularity due to convenience and the recent market for inexpensive models, it would be easy to paint these as weapons for murderers a la your favorite hitman movie.

NFA in general: The DC opinion does say registration is conducive to a well-regulated militia. And only NFA weapons are registered.

Background checks, felons, etc.: A non-issue, generally, as these are seen as acceptable in today’s opinion.

That said, I think they could rule that there is an individual right to arms but that the state has a vested interest in regulating that right with a view to prevent crime and general mayhem.

At the federal level, I don’t see much happening if the Supremes pick it up. But, at the state level, there could be some major issues. Particularly in places like Cali, NY, Mass and Chicago.

Don’t go opening your gun shop in DC yet. You can rest assured that there will be a stay on this ruling while appeals are filed.

Interesting times.

In DC, circuit court has ruled that the second amendment means what it says. Individual rights. Woot! Volokh has some analysis. So does Kerr.

Here’s the opinion.

I’m still reading.

Insty has more.

Update: Heh:

We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it does not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18 (9th Cir. 2003). We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound.

Update: Now, the DC and the Fifth circuit hold an individual rights view. Other circuits hold the collective rights mythology. Looks like such a split will have to be decided by the supreme court.

Update: For those not familiar, here’s background info.

Update: They address the grammar of the second amendment and conclude what anyone with a basic grasp of English would conclude. Even references to commas.

Giggle: The District’s argument—as strained as it seems to us—is hardly an isolated view.

Shocking: The people means, err, the people.

Update: They get Miller right. Dissent is pretty weak. Well, I couldn’t make it past the first few pages due to all my giggling about states being people on page 63. Is Parker a state?

Update: Another good line (from Chris in comments):

just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.

Update: One more interesting bit:

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service.

Since I posted about foundling wheels, a friend brought this cartoon to my attention.