2nd Amendment

Redstate nabs MSNBC red-handed deliberately distorting a video to claim racial hatred towards Obama... the problem is that they had to crop the video a great deal to use a black gun owner and depict him as a white gun owner:

OK, remember last weekend, when there were a bunch of reports of armed people at the Arizona town hall? Lots of stories of bemused reporters trying to get their heads around the notion that in Arizona you can wander around with an AR-15 -

Which is not a fully automatic weapon, by the way. You can’t buy fully automatic weapons in the USA* [clarification in original article at link above]. I mention this because this is apparently news to our journalistic class.

- anyway, lots of bemused reporters, not least because of this picture (via here):

Health care rationing protester, by the way. See also this video, and stop at about 0:28.

OK, yup, same guy. Now watch this:

They cropped the video to obscure this guy’s ethnicity. Because it didn’t fit their narrative, which was that they think somebody - somebody white - was going to try to hurt the President.

I usually don’t say this sort of thing all that often, but this is one of those times: this is inexcusable. THIS. WAS. DELIBERATE. They had the clip. They knew that the guy was a peaceful protester making a point about the Second Amendment. They knew that - by definition - he was not a crazy white right-winger itching to take a shot at the President. But they altered his appearance so that it matched their argument that there is an active risk of crazy right-wingers itching to take a shot at the President.

Journalistic integrity? Nah!

Integrity at all? Nah!

So what's important to MSNBC? Having a narrative that appeals to their audience, which as DailyKos recently noted through one of their polls is almost entirely Democrats. With their attempts to outdo Fox News when it comes to appealing to a particular political persuasion, they seem to be giving them a run for their money... and in cases like this, taking the cake.

From DailyKos:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 8/3-6. All adults. MoE 2% (No trend lines)

How often do you watch ___; daily, at least once a week, a few times a month, rarely, or never?

...

MSNBC was easily the least-recognized network of the bunch, with 60 percent of respondents unable to give an opinion. That "not sure" number was only 22 percent for CNN, and 24 percent for FNC.

CNN won Democrats, some Republicans, and won the most independents over, what few watch cable news, that is. Fox of course won over Republicans with some Democrats and Independents. And MSNBC appeals only to some Democrats... and barely anybody else. I wonder why?

Mimicking a network you hate to win ratings? Pathetic.

Inciting racial tensions by deliberately distorting the facts to play to your fan base's narrative? Friggin' irresponsible.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reviled by many conservatives for what they view as a penchant for loose constructionist or otherwise pro-liberal rulings, has become a beach head in the fight to win one of the biggest fights in the 2nd Amendment / Gun Control debate. From a recent NRA/ILA Alert:

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked a milestone in Second Amendment history by ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRA has been involved in, and supportive of, this case for the past ten years and has filed several amicus briefs in the case.

"The historic Heller decision was a major victory for law-abiding gun owners and recognized that the federal government and the District of Columbia cannot infringe on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "This week's decision, which applies to the states in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington), ensures that the fundamental freedoms affirmed in Heller are not just limited to the residents of Washington, D.C."

...

"This decision brings us closer to seeing Heller applied throughout the land," concluded Cox. "After nearly 10 years of litigation, the hard work of the Nordykes, their attorneys, Donald Kilmer and Don Kates, and NRA's legal team has resulted in this week's historic decision."

14th Amendment Incorporation:

The 14th Amendment was a post civil war Amendment aimed at, among other things, ending the deprivation of liberty of freedmen and others by State governments in the post-war South. Though it's intentions at the time were pointed, it's scope applied generally to all states and all issues along similar lines:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV, Section 1

The bold portion is what is at hand with this ruling and is generally straightforward at first glance. One can easily see how if the government came and took your stuff or shot your uncle or prohibited you from using your liberty, such as publishing a newsletter, without any due process people would be peeved. Even with due process, such as a court case finding them guilty of theft and forcing them to pay a fine, or perhaps going to prison (as a deprivation of liberty), etc may still leave them peeved, but at least it's fair and allows them the ability to appeal or seek recourse in case of an error.

What's less straightforward is the idea of substantive due process. What if instead of just taking your property, say your car, the State government passes a law that says all cars must be donated to the State gov't. If you refuse, you may get "due process" in the sense of procedural due process: court hearings, appeals, etc. But they'd all be rendered moot by the fact that they are bound by the law and would almost certainly be required to rule against you.

This is where the idea of substantive due process comes in. I touched on this concept in an unrelated prior post:

Due process typically refers to the procedures of carrying out a law, especially the judicial recourse for those wronged. The idea of substantive due process refers to the lawmaking ability of the legislatures themselves as to whether the laws they can create are fair or not. So the typical idea of due process or procedural due process deals with the fair application of the laws and recourse if the laws were unfairly applied. Substantive due process deals with whether or not the laws themselves are fair and allowable. The first appearance of substantive due process in Constitutional law came from a far more infamous Supreme Court decision, namely Dred Scott v Sanford (1856):

"And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law."

The general idea here is that without substantive due process limitations, the courts would be impotent to stop State laws that effectively rendered any procedural due process moot as they deprived life, liberty, or property. Someone who read Amendment XIV, Section 1 more carefully is bound to wonder why the privileges and immunities clause wouldn't apply here instead, and perhaps make far more direct sense. For the backstory on that clusterfrag of Constitutional law, wikipedia actually has a fairly decent page on the subject with links to the Slaughter House Cases and other relevant cases.

The concept of substantive due process predated Amendment XIV (dealing with Amendment V's similar language) and predated the later attempts by the court to either intentionally or unintentionally reduce its limits on State governments from infringing upon liberty. So in modern Constitutional law it's essentially what we have left to work with to implement the intent of Amendment XIV and do so with intellectual honesty.

It is how various rights in the Bill of Rights were over time incorporated with Amendment XIV and held as limiting upon State governments, from free speech, freedom of the press, etc. It is also how some non-enumerated rights have gained similar protection from government infringement by noting Amendment IX's attempt to ensure that a bill of rights did not backfire by being overly brief: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The big question on many issues is whether they fit the view of "liberty" as a fundamental liberty that State governments may not write unfair laws in infringing against per the due process clause and substantive due process interpretations.

Today gun owners got a big first step to seeing what has long been considered overdue by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"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." - pg. 4496

This victory is due in large part to the Heller decision on the D.C. gun ban where the Supreme Court finally laid to rest the absurd "collectivist view" of an individual right (that required one to read the Constitution with a different meaning of People for this one sole Amendment one way, and the meaning of it in the Constitution itself and other Amendments an entirely different way, which strained credulity.)

Shortly after the Heller decision I pondered on how it may affect future incorporation attempts:

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.

With this 9th Circuit ruling, infamous to conservative groups for their rulings in the past. This seems to be a first indication of how this will eventually play out in circuits across the nation. It's a great sign!

Tonight's local news reported that area gun dealers are hitting a supply crunch as demand for semi-auto rifles and other guns suspected of being on Obama's ban plans has skyrocketed across the nation. Distributors are apparently having a hard time keeping up to keep local suppliers stocked.

At least Obama's election is helping to stimulate one part of the economy... even if temporarily.

Obama has recently removed his page on his official transition website that was touting his dedication to banning at least some of my guns, depending on what language they use this time to define "assault weapon" which has always gone after semi-auto firearms and never anything like the AK-47s you see in the movies (which are already regulated under the National Firearms Act).

You can rest assured when this comes back up again though, you'll hear a lot of references to full-auto guns like AK-47s, M-16s, and such, which "assault weapon" bans never included, at least as people know them from tv or movies or even military experience of dealing with these full-auto guns. And plenty of rhetoric using terms like "spray fire," "rapid fire," "military style," and so on... even though the guns they're actually banning aren't machine guns and aren't full-auto firearms that militaries typically use.

The gun grabbers are already pushing for bans and Obama and Congress seem to have no qualms about obliging them, regardless of the historical forgetfulness required to believe that a mandate on economic issues is somehow a mandate to violate the Bill of Rights. More on the Brady Bunch declaring victory here.

Time to stock up and pray for grandfather clauses before the bans drive up prices to insane levels again while doing absolutely nothing to address the real problems behind the violence.

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?)