2nd Amendment

Illinois has long been one of the most anti-rights states in America when it comes to the Second Amendment, but now there's a push for county ballot questions asking for concealed carry laws, and one such referendum is on the ballot in Winnebago County (Rockford).

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states without some form of concealed carry and Winnebago County is considering a county law that would allow people to carry if they received a permit from the Sheriff, but a state law would be a far better alternative.

Good stuff.

(Hat tip:  Instapundit)

The NRA is pushing to end further gun bans across the country following the US Supreme Court ruling against the D.C. handgun ban on the grounds that such weapons were protected under an individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution:

Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.

 

“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”

 

The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park.

 

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

It seems unbelievable that an argument against incorporation could stand at this point. Someone would actually have to argue that people in federal territories have a protected right to keep and bear arms but that people in States do not. I'm sure some will try, one way or another... but it's difficult to see how any court could deny incorporation after this ruling.

Especially when the court eloquently pointed out that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to ensure the people were armed so that the common people could be an effective militia (all persons capable of bearing arms for the common defense)... but the critical point was that the primary reason was not the only reason for the right, and the right exists regardless. Given this right exists so prominently in the bill of rights, and all incorporation cases thus far have involved fundamental liberties being protected from infringement by State/local government... these cases sound like sure deal to me.

I'm excited, but cautiously excited.

So, in the aftermath of my somewhat controversial comparison of violence in Iraq and violence in Chicago, does anyone want to take a stab at comparing the security situations in Iraq compared to the policies now being implemented in Washington, DC?

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.’s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her “All Hands on Deck” weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.

Of course, I would never dream of comparing the two situations.  Wouldn't be politically correct.

Aside:  Good thing that DC has a gun ban, otherwise things would be much, much worse!

One would think that a candidate, running for President in the 21st Century, whose entire candidacy has had a narrative of transparent pandering and astonishing position changes, would know better than to attempt a naked pander and position change on an absolutely fundamental issue, in a very public forum, the weekend before the largest Primary Election in American history.

But not Mitt Romney, who used a podcast on one of the center-right's most widely read blogs to absolutely contradict his previous positions on gun control.  As Instapundit says, in response:  "I'm beginning to question [Romney's] sincerity."

Longtime readers will know that I'm no fan of John McCain.  But I really do think that Romney is convinced that he's so smart and that we're so stupid that he can get away will stuff like this.  He's our Bill Clinton. I really do have a hard time understanding how anyone can take anything he says seriously.

Here's a Christmas present idea for the 2nd Amendment crowd.

I'm pretty sure it's a real product.  I'm thinking about getting one as a semi-gag Christmas gift for my Father-in-Law.

The top story on Drudge at the moment:

Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.

"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.

He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws.

"I believe that law endforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws," he said. "A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home."

Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was "excessive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime" but said that "intervening events" like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. "I think that lawsuit has gone in the direction that I don't agree with."

He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city's gun ban as instrumental to changing and "strengthening" his views on gun control. That ruling, Parker vs. the Distict of Columbia, was handed down just as Giuliani was beginning his presidential bid.

I've been critical of Mitt Romney for months for being a disengenuous pandering flip-flopper, all the while saying that I was actually hoping for my preferred candidate, Rudy Giuliani, to change his position on gun rights.  I'm happy he appears to have done so, but I don't think it's going to help him very much - I still think record is more important to most voters. 

That said, maybe I need to avoid picking on Romney's flip-flops for a while.

In the CNN/YouTube debate, Biden suggested that a gun owner was not mentally fit to own a gun because he wants to keep his guns. Notice the applause, the laughter. It was a real crowd pleaser. Another example of how Democrats will bring this country together.

Just imagine what would happen if a Republican candidate suggested that one of the YouTube question-askers was mentally unstable because of their desire to kill unborn babies.

In light of the recent school shootings, Dave Kopel writes a thought-provoking piece at NRO today about possible self-defense options.

He offers up a lot of ideas, including concealed-carry and self defense training for both the teachers and students.

Kopel references Utah, which has allowed concealed-carry, even on school grounds, since 1995.  In 11 years, there have been "zero reported problems of concealed handgun licensees misusing guns at school, or students stealing guns from teachers, or teachers using their licensed firearms to shoot or threaten students. During this same period, we also have had exactly zero mass murders in Utah schools."

Kopel adds, "A person has the right to choose to be a pacifist, but it is wrong to force everyone else to act like a pacifist. It is the policies of the pacifist-aggressives which have turned American schools into safe zones for mass murderers."

You hate to think about such things, but he might have a point.

Listening to the news the last few weeks, you'd think that the upcoming rate hikes for Ameren and other utility companies are a big surprise to the Democrats in the state legislature. Naomi Jakobsson is sponsoring legislation to stop the hikes. Mike Frerichs supports some type of legsialtion to stop them too. We knew these hikes were on the way ever since 1997. Don't you think that's enough time to prepare?

Just who has been running the show in Springfield for the last four years? We have had four years of total Democratic control of Illinois government. Blago has appointed most of the commerce commission members. The Democrats could have pushed through any type of legislation that they might want that would have resolved this issue. Now, after the legislature is out of session, we see these same Democrats bemoaning the upcoming rate hikes and no one seems to be asking any of them why they didn't do anything when they had the chance.

Chief culprit here of course is Rod Blagojevich. Next in line are the legislative leaders, Emil Jones (mentor of Mike Frerichs) and Mike Madigan. You can add Annazette Collins and James Clayborne as committee chairmen in charge of blocking utility relief legislation. Clayborne is one of Frerichs' biggest contributors.

So remember who was in charge when these rate hikes took place. And who will stay in charge if you elect them again.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is among the most effective grassroots political groups in Illinois (witness the quick death of the assault weapons ban in a state entirely controlled by urban, anti-gun Democrats), and they've just endorsed Sen. Bill Brady for Governor.

“With Bill Brady in the governor's mansion, the state's law-abiding firearm owners will no longer be thrust into the role of scapegoat for failed liberal social policies,” the ISRA Political Victory Fund said in its endorsement. “Bill Brady is truly the law-abiding firearm owner's best friend.”

Maybe this will finally spark Brady's campaign?

Some people have figured things out the hard way:

Gun sales across the South boomed after the first reports surfaced of armed looters roaming the streets of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And images of shots being fired at relief workers only elevated fears in some communities.

Now, as hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes are being resettled, gun store owners say they're being flooded by a demand for guns--particularly in Southern states and others where many of the hurricane victims are being relocated.

Mostly, they say, the demand is being fueled by "good people" wanting to protect their families and property. That includes some who might not otherwise purchase such weapons, they add.

If you rely on the government as your sole means of protection, what happens when the government fails? 

Even Eric Zorn is thinking about it...

(Snark alert: I wonder, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, whether the government was able to protect the citizens of New Orleans from the brutality of secondhand smoke?)