by Jonathan Singer, Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:14:49 PM EDT
This is interesting:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, handing a sharp defeat to the National Rifle Association.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms is not an adequate basis for lawsuits attacking local gun ordinances, the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
A panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor reached a similar conclusion about the reach of the Second Amendment in a case from New York over a state law banning the possession of chuka sticks -- a weapon composed of two sticks joined at the ends by a rope or chain.
What's interesting about this decision, which holds that the Second Amendment is not incorporated to the states, isn't that it was a unanimous decision, but rather that the unanimous panel was an entirely conservative one made up of Ronald Reagan appointees Frank Easterbrook (who penned the decision) and Richard Posner, and Gerald Ford appointee William Bauer.
Political conservatives might not like this reasoning, and they have certainly tried to argue that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is in some way an effort to undermine the Second Amendment because she came to roughly the same conclusion in a similar case. But with one of the most judicially conservative panels in the nation reaching the same verdict as Judge Sotomayor, it's going to be awfully difficult to make stick the charges that she is unreasonably opposed to gun owner rights.
by nrafter530, Wed May 20, 2009 at 04:22:00 PM EDT
I'm struck by two votes the Senate took recently that the liberal blogsphere has been absolutely FREAKING out about.
The first vote was for an amendment to the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights, which not only passed the Senate 67-29, but later passed the House as well. To their credit, Democrats in the House did try to strip the amendment, but it passed anyway. The amendment, sponsored by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, was to allow loaded guns into National Parks.
The other amendment, sponsored by Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, an amendment to the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that would bar any funding to be used to transport or release Gitmo prisoners into the United States.
The conservadems strike again, right?
by MAL Contends, Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 07:01:54 AM EDT
The Devil, strike that, the culture made me do it!
Gary Kamiya strikes out today with his piece on cop killer Richard Poplawski.
The sub-headline asks "amid the deafening din of the right wing's anti-government rhetoric, how extreme is he?"
Kamiya should have stopped at the editor's sub-headline in his 1,100-word piece.
by Qshio, Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:28:33 AM EDT
[This is a cross-post from my column at Examiner.com]
I take it back. Despite my initial impressions, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has obviously thought long and hard about withholding congressional representation from the District's 600,000 residents. You see, Ensign concocted an amendment that would dismantle the city's gun control laws, and stapled it onto the DC vote bill (using a staple gun I can only assume). The bill, NRA kiss-up amendment included, passed the Senate. Now it and the gunless House version must somehow be reconciled.
Ensign had muttered to Politico that he "hadn't given it much thought," but now we see he was just jerking our chain, because yesterday we found he had written an op-ed for the Washington Post explaining his ironclad reasoning for keeping the District voiceless. The semi-citizens of DC don't want a House representative, Ensign tells us, we want more guns.
In the piece, Ensign really feels DC's pain, lamenting that we have been having our "right to self-defense" violated, that the restrictions on firearms imposed by the city government were "burdensome," and that they "frustrate and discourage DC residents." The raw, sincere empathy is quite moving.
John Ensign sees into our souls so clearly that I wonder if he isn't really TV fake-psychic John Edward. I can just see him now, at a community meeting in the District, wandering the stage and connecting with voters. . .
(Cue wavy lines indicating transition to imaginary scene.)
by Skex, Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:10:04 AM EDT
Today I was having a discussion with a guy at work, who was going on about the tired old "Democrats will take your guns away" argument.
I frankly find this absurd; however I came to a bit of an epiphany on the subject myself.
See I've long believed that the party that will actually take everyone's guns was actually the GOP since fascists really don't want to deal with an armed public however that's not my point in this case.
I'm talking about these so called 2nd Amendment purists who are anything but pure.