- Everyone in the majority (except Thomas) circumvented the Privileges and Immunities clause (and avoided addressing the Slaughterhouse cases) in favor of the Due Process clause. To me, this still reads as "(X) is an right, unless we perform a necessary and sufficient amount of legal acrobatics and tortured reasoning (emanating all over your penumbra), after which it is perfectly acceptable to remove it again. Cue fanfare."
- Sotomayor joins the dissenting side instead of recusing herself from the case for involvement in Maloney v. Cuomo:
Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
- Even though this breaks the logjam of cases regarding the Second Amendment (Peña v. Cid, Sykes v. McGinness), expect more waffling and resistance from every beneath every rock and from every cesspool a la Daley.
Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.
The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.
"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement.
Take that, you mealy-mouthed, panty-waisted, half-wit hoplophobes!
Damn, but don't it feel good to win one now and again. I think I'll look at some real-estate in Arizona, as it just vaulted itself into the upper reaches of my list of desirable places to inhabit on a semi-permanent basis.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But I really would like you to answer the question that you didn't have an opportunity to finish answering, and that is: What other enumerated rights? What does the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship embrace?
MR. GURA: The unenumerated rights, Justice Ginsburg?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The popular wisdom is correct: anyone can grow up to be a Justice, Senator, or President. Anyone.
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a date to hear the landmark civil liberties case that will determine whether the Second Amendment prohibits state and local governments from enacting stiff anti-gun laws.
Oral arguments in the lawsuit, McDonald v. City of Chicago, will be held on the morning of March 2, 2010. A decision is expected by late June or early July.
That muffled popping sound you hear is Dianne Feinstein's dentures grinding in anticipation.
- Somewhat aged, but as the target flotsam study floats around the confines of the Internet, this should serve to shut down mindless yapping to its affirmative: Eugene Volokh tears into the University of Pennsylvania study claiming that carrying a firearm increases the chances of being shot by 450%.
- Color me unsurprised: the proletariat in the PRK is unhappy with the situation in Sacramento, but is unwilling to remove the persistent source of the problems that plague the state.
- Unpossible; guns are illegal in Chicago! Perhaps if they made them double-plus-ungood-illegal, that would convince those that already disregard the laws to stop disregarding the law.
An Indian farmer’s daughter disarmed a terrorist leader who broke into her home, attacked him with an axe and shot him dead with his own gun.
Rukhsana Kausar, 21, was with her parents and brother in Jammu and Kashmir when three gunmen, believed to be Pakistani militants, forced their way in and demanded food and beds for the night...
His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.
She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.
I sincerely hope that she kept the AK-47 as a trophy (fair game; you keep what you kill) and that the other villagers have taken note of the example set by Ms. Kausar. I suspect that following this incident (were she so inclined), she would have her pick of bridegrooms, all things being equal.
As Ms. Kausar discovered, it follows that only reasonable people may be reasoned with; thieves-in-the-night subscribe to not reason, but force, and must be met in kind.
David Hardy at Of Arms & the Law has a quick 'n dirty analysis of mysterious and subtle ways of the 9th Circuit, and the subsequent eleven-judge en banc review of the case:
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 09/24/2009 at 4:07:21 PM PDT and filed on 09/24/2009: Case Name: Nordyke, et al v. King, et al Case Number: 07-15763
Docket Text: Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI): Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497.
[Essentially, Nordyke will be held onto until the Supreme Ct disposes of the other cases, either granting cert. and ruling, or denying cert.]
... This is nice in a way since it gives two shots at Supreme Court review, and IF the Chicago cases were refused, and the 9th then ruled for incorporation of the right to arms, there would be a second shot at Supreme Court consideration, now with a split among the circuits[.]
It seems that the chance for Sotomayor to recuse herself just jumped, provided that Maloney v. Rice/Cuomo makes it to the Supreme Court before NRA v. Chicago. (The Volokh Conspiracy has relevant discussion here.)
The ATF - as expected - has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.
We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority…
Interesting times ahead, folks. Every time the patricians tighten the vise on the citizens, there is an inevitable move towards a grey market, which causes the cycle to begin anew.
I ask again: what part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is unclear? Furthermore, what makes it an acceptable legal practice to completely ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?
Mark Muller, owner of Max Motors, is upgrading an earlier sales gimmick in which he offered new truck buyers to choose between a $250 gas voucher or a gun voucher. The website says the dealer is giving away guns again "due to popular demand."
"Muller calls the initial deal an overwhelming success," Business Insider reports. "He also says it generates a lot of publicity and really angers 'liberals.'"
Muller tells CNN he is won't be handing out the free weapons personally but will give buyers a voucher to use at a gun store.
The AK-47 isn't typically a "precision" rifle, but the name has universal recognition, and the ZOMG-factor of getting one (via voucher) with one's new truck should not be discounted. To the contrary, it seems to be working out for Mr. Muller just fine.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra cash from buying a used truck (a depreciating asset of flexible value), then use the surplus to buy several quality firearms and corresponding ammunition by the case, but that's just me.
Sheriff's spokeswoman Elise Schaffer said Cody J. Redenius, 20, is under a domestic abuse restraining order that prohibits him from possessing a firearm.
His ex--girlfriend told investigators she found a picture of Redenius holding the shotgun on his Facebook account. The picture was posted Wednesday. It's unclear who posted it.
What's the real story here? Is it that one can be busted over a social-networking site for alleged wrong-doing, or that a restraining order (not, mind you, a conviction by a jury of peers) invalidates numerous Constitutionally-protected rights?
Brought to you by Joe "Foot-in-Mouth" Biden via the VAWA of 1994: remember, this man is one heart-beat away from the Football...
BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.
California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.
Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”
Let me be brief in my analysis: the California Department of Justice can die in a fire for their "approved list", and I hope they choke on the ashes of their paperwork, cursing their mouth-breathing socialist overlords.
I am truly weary of this state being the laughing-stock of the nation.
By what power does the federal government operate? By the power of the sovereigns who chartered it. Arbitrary power exists nowhere in a free republic.
I am certain that every so often, the Ninth Circuit does something like this just to throw the rest of us off-balance:
... The County does little to refute this powerful evidence that the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the Republic, a right Americans considered fundamental at the Founding and thereafter. The County instead argues that the states, in the exercise of their police power, are the instrumentalities of the right of self-defense at the heart of the Second Amendment. This argument merely rephrases the collective rights argument the Supreme Court rejected in Heller. Indeed, one need only consider other constitutional rights to see the poverty of this contention. State police power also covers, for instance, some of the conduct the First Amendment protects, but that does not deny individuals the right to assert First Amendment rights against the states. (15)
Once the County actually addresses modern incorporation doctrine, it relies on general assertions that run afoul of Heller. For example, the County declares that “the English common law tradition does not recognize an individual’s right to possess a firearm as a fundamental right.” Heller plainly contradicts that statement because it says that “[b]y the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects.” 128 S. Ct. at 2798. The County also claims that Heller “nowhere concludes that an individual right to possess firearms for personal self-defense is a fundamental right.” But that misses the point. If Heller had indeed held that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right as we use the term in substantive due process doctrine, then the issue would be foreclosed. The point is that language throughout Heller suggests that the right is fundamental by characterizing it the same way other opinions described enumerated rights found to be incorporated.
... We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. (17) We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. (18)
(Pages 4476-4496)
In a peculiar turn of events, the County prevailed on the ordinance, so it may not appeal the decision, which leaves the State in an awkward position without further review inside the court-system. (Eugene Volokh also adds that this is only one of three cases currently under-way to provide access to incorporation regarding the Second Amendment.)
This is by far my favorite quip regarding the case:
"What an pyrrhic victory for the gun grabbing county executive. She got the gun shows banned from county property, but accidently got the 2nd amendment incorporated in the process..."
Oops. Sometimes, when the stars are aligned and the Keynesian animal-spirits are near, even the Ninth Circuit can get it right.
But a funny thing happened en route to a visually pleasing Tax Day protest. The National Park Service said the tea party protesters didn't have the proper permit to dump their bags.
So instead of a raucous visual demonstration, all that was left were images of the tea party packing up their boxes of tea on a cold, soggy day in D.C.
Doh!"
We have a million tea bags here, and we don't have a place to put them because it's not on our permit," said Rebecca Wales, lead organizer of D.C. Tea Party.
Fight the power, folks, but next time check your permits before acquiring 1 million tea bags.
I've had a few brief discussions amongst friends and acquaintances over the last week or so regarding the April 15th Tea Parties; I remained largely ambivalent about the protest until today, as I was only mildly curious about the turn-out both locally and nation-wide.
I have to say, I am not impressed. When you folks get serious about this, you know where I am.
The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.
During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.
"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."
I'm not going to re-hash the arguments against this here, again, now; this is merely the latest in a long list of "a long train of abuses and usurpations", to quote some scholars that are, for lack of less delicate terms, passé.
We have lost it, ladies and gentlemen. The republic is gone, and the coming days will confirm this assertion in ways that we cannot imagine. Yes, that sounds melodramatic, but who among us could have imagined the Great Depression in 1928? Or the horrors of the First World War in 1912?
Considering the still-active frenzy of firearms-related purchases, is there an expectation that there will be widespread compliance with a nation-wide registration movement? In the fevered dreams of Beltway politicians, perhaps. Perhaps light sweet crude will fall to a permanent $5 per barrel, and perhaps Obama will unleash his unicorn-cavalry and cleanse the globe of nuclear arms forevermore, leaving pot-pourri and Skittles in their wake.
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: ... So the hearing today is important to move this forward. Mr. Kibble and Mr. Hoover, I was deeply troubled to learn that the vast majority of weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico come from the United States and that the Mexican cartels are increasingly smuggling military equipment that cannot be legally sold to civilians in either country. Could you please describe the primary source of such weapons and what efforts are under-way to enhance the ability to present these weapons from entering the civilian sector? Mr. Hoover?
WILLIAM HOOVER (BATFE): As far as military firearms, Sir, we have had fewer than, I believe, a dozen traces that go back to military firearms. Now, we have had some military United States-originated military instruments, such as grenades, that have ended up with the cartels, and I would like to speak with you in another hearing or another matter, but I can't go further into that as we are in this session.
KUMAR KIBBLE (ICE): Sir, and this is more anecdotal, but we do have some investigations that have indicated that those weapons may be diverted from other regions and not necessarily coming directly from the U.S., and that's something that we could discuss in greater detail.
Clinton late Wednesday called letting a previous US ban on the sale of assault weapons expire "a mistake."
"I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don't belong on anyone's street," said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.
"During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn't have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members," the chief US diplomat said.
"So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns," Clinton said.
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
Folks, I don't want to beat a dead horse here (even if it would raise Ingrid Newkirk's dander), but the facts are there: semi-automatic military-style weapons are simply not the weapons of choice for domestic criminals. Or, to really push the equine floggings, there simply is no terrorist with a fully-automatic AK-47 (that he bought at the pawn-shop down the street) hiding behind the azaleas in the front yard. TIME Magazine (horror of horrors) corroborates this claim:
The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000, according to an unpublished study by U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and obtained exclusively by TIME:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver 2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic 3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic 4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic 5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun 6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic 7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver 8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic 9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic 10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
The list is derived from the center's investigations of 88,570 guns recovered from crime scenes in 46 cities in 2000, is being analyzed for ATF's youth gun crime interdiction initiative, which helps local police forces understand and counter gun trafficking to youth in their jurisdictions.
Frankly, the whole notion that the United States is supplying the drug-cartels with weaponry is idiotic, to put it in polite terms. Let's pause for a reality-check: in world where the cartels can afford to use submarines to smuggle drugs, why would they bother to do the red-tape waltz in the United States to acquire semi-automatic weapons at market price?
Answer: Crime isn't the issue, drugs aren't the issue, but you and I, the tax-payers, with semi-automatic military-grade firearms is an issue.
Take a few minutes to mull that over. I'll be here.
Q: "Madam Speaker, Attorney General Holder yesterday said that the Administration wants to reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Have you talked with Administration officials about that, and how quickly can you bring it to the floor?"
Speaker Pelosi: No, but I think on that score, one good place to start would be to enforce the laws that are on the books right now. And I think the evidence points this out, that the Bush Administration was not enforcing law. So let's start with enforcing the law that we have now."
Does Holder have "foot-in-mouth" disease, or did he let the cat out of the bag?
How was the Bush Administration not enforcing the law regarding those nasty "assault weapons"? If anything, the BATFE seems to enforce laws not on the books right now, and encourages interpretations that favor arbitrary enforcement of said "laws".
I can't bring myself to believe that Pelosi has suddenly developed a new-found respect for the Second Amendment, as we poor proletariat in the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia have steaming heaps of evidence to the contrary; hence, I must surmise that either there is a measure of infighting between the Princess Pelosi Power-Puff Party and the Hope-Change Kool-Aid Korps, or Pelosi believes that their political position is not yet sufficiently entrenched to weather the political backlash from such a ban.
Either way, I predict that firearms sales will continue on a strong upward trend.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration...
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
This doesn't surprise me, as Pelosi seems to have Reid's tackle firmly in her skeletal grip. I suspect that Pelosi is adopting a realistic view regarding the maintenance of a Democratic majority in the House, and that the lofty throne of the Speaker of the House soothes the voices too sweetly for her to give it up without a grotesque level of carnage.
At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.
U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police "are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47's or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico," Holder said.
Maybe it's a double-secret underhand twin-spoiler extra-cheese economic stimulus, designed to promote consumer confidence through firearms sales!
And maybe I'll be the first one on my block with a sleigh hitched to eight flying pigs.
A coalition led by [Switzerland's] Social Democrat party and the Greens has collected nearly 120,000 signatures to force a national referendum on whether the weapons should be stored at military bases...
Service in the militia is compulsory for men aged between 19 and 31 and in between call-ups they store their weapons at home. There are currently around 220,000 conscripts.
However, a 2007 law change banned the storage of ammunition in homes. The coalition is looking to extend this, control the purchase of military weapons and set up a national gun register.
Green lawmaker Josef Lang said more than 1.5 million unused weapons were kept in Swiss homes.
Lang said their presence "at the heart" of the population could not be justified.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
As observed of late, increased third-world immigration, strict firearms-control measures and draconian edicts regarding civil liberties have done much to enrich the member-nations of the EU; perhaps a good riot and some knife-trauma will enlighten the Swiss to the "shining future" that the collectivists are pushing.
Personally, the only shine I see is that of the collectivists' knives. The Swiss would do well to remember their history, the history of their neighbors, and laugh the quislings out of the country.
May you remain forever armed and forever free, Switzerland.
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uKL_y40KiR1hyd8rUzUpBXVZI0MgpMTCHkb7OP83Ith_8XCshOcq6A1g5dIng-uI3l9BM8IdfHzfBeMXPMnACPut68jQiFRRKYtYdZEq8volhPdkQWDBdUOWhlIiBI2vJd=s0-d)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_voNEqntCo0STTQ_h1XdaXUdhdzcnVT7KAL6JGk_A7Yj6C3BWOnozBBpwB-0ilOCZdvAB7CTxwN35ckwc0CWDoLqjveT_Wg9GhAVf9V26RD13v1Qm7HEIl6ZPfo4Du-Pu9RKH5g=s0-d)
