tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53682367124417992122009-10-06T19:05:55.065-07:00Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-49078252945188305532009-10-06T18:51:00.000-07:002009-10-06T19:05:55.075-07:00

From Paul Payne...SUBJECT: SB-2099SOURCE: http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/SB2099.shtml QUESTION:Is it true that . . .  Senate BillSB-2099 will require owners of firearms to pay a $50 charge per gun andlist each gun on their federal tax form? ANSWER: The answeris no.  This Internet rumor states that SB-2099 is legislationcurrently being considered by the Senate. The bill supposedly

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-67828753591077512112009-07-14T08:55:00.001-07:002009-07-14T09:05:45.685-07:00

NRA-ILA: Sonia Sotomayor on gun rightsAlso, the good folks at FreeRepublic.com are liveblogging the hearings. FReeper pabianice reports that Sotomayor has reaffirmed her position that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the States.[Sotomayor] Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.The Ninth

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-76398933962922365102009-06-21T04:10:00.001-07:002009-06-24T00:07:16.295-07:00

So what is it that motivates us clingy gun owners? Why the obsession with guns? This clip from Iran (Be forewarned: This is extremely graphic and disturbing. Do not click the link if you are easily offended.) shows what happens when the government holds a monopoly on violence.Across Iran, the people have been protesting an obviously fraudulent election. Government thugs, the Basij, have felt free

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-66929069124277800012009-06-16T00:46:00.000-07:002009-06-16T00:46:00.624-07:00

Go check out the new NRA web site.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-11439287097683530712008-09-17T19:42:00.001-07:002008-09-17T19:42:25.895-07:00

Hugh Hewitt weighs in on Obama and his "I don’t have the votes in Congress" comment...The idea that Second Amendment rights depend on Congressional inaction due to a lack of votes is the give-away here.  First Amendment rights cannot be curtailed by Congressional Action. Fourth Amendment rights are not subject to majority vote.  Gunowners and originalists wonder why Obama is conceding that

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-63675157915418248262008-09-16T06:40:00.001-07:002008-09-16T06:40:31.950-07:00

...he sure has a funny way with words:Obama: "Even if I wanted to take (guns) away, I don’t have the votes in Congress."

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-89637003938655033292008-07-09T07:47:00.001-07:002008-07-09T07:47:39.544-07:00

Our monthly meeting is tonight at 7pm. We've got a lot to talk about this month. Not only is there the Heller decision to talk about (And celebrate!), but there are developments on condors and how the greenies' effort affect those of us who hunt.(A note: Asking the wait staff "Where's the NRA meeting?" may not be of much use. Not all of them know who we. Just walk on in to the back of the

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-1441807295700727402008-07-04T07:43:00.001-07:002008-07-04T07:43:47.391-07:00

From the ACLU Blog page on the Heller Decision, the ACLU starts by posting their official position on Heller...The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-24374749027795594892008-06-28T20:35:00.001-07:002008-06-28T20:35:41.402-07:00

David Kopel asks: What is the right protected in the Heller dissent?I have not yet studied the Stevens dissent in depth, but on my initial read, I was confused as what exactly is the scope of the individual right that Justice Stevens thinks the Second Amendment does protect?Of course, as Kopel points out later, no right is protected. Stevens' argument it merely a "continuing repackaing of efforts

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-53252247427103622772008-06-28T11:37:00.001-07:002008-06-28T11:37:03.686-07:00

From FreeRepublic.com: An Annual Celebration?: Heller Day

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-60838855371000131192008-06-28T09:08:00.000-07:002008-06-28T09:11:52.786-07:00

Where have I heard that before?From Hot Air

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-24674333691927355262008-06-28T01:49:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:14:30.116-07:00

In response to that city's stubborn efforts to deny the rights of its citizens, the NRA sues to overturn San Francisco gun ban in city housing.The San Francisco challenge includes an anonymous individual plaintiff, identified as "Guy Montag Doe," who is a gay man living in a San Francisco Housing Authority unit who said in court papers that he keeps a gun in his home to protect himself against

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-22225423421655229672008-06-27T10:57:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.298-07:00

SCOTUSblog » New case tests Second Amendment’s reachA lawsuit (McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al.) has been filed against the city of Chicago alleging that their DC-esque handgun law violates the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-91611602827288994172008-06-27T08:45:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.298-07:00

I've noticed a funny trend in stories about Heller. Nearly all, as might be expected, make mention of Miller. But in pre-decision stories, Miller was usually characterized as saying the 2nd Amendment applied only to State militias; i.e. the National Guard. This is quite incorrect. Today, stories on Heller now correctly state that Miller was about the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to a

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-84126439125831078412008-06-26T22:52:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.299-07:00

I kinda hoped I could get more than one page into Justice Stevens' dissent before I found myself shouting WRONG!! But alas, that wasn't to be. I got to the 3rd paragraph and just had to stop...The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.That just isn't true. If that were the case, then the text of the

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-66037281916360504162008-06-26T13:31:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.299-07:00

Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage - NYTimes.com - Am I having too much fun today?The Antis are screeching and squealing over Heller. Of course, we knew they wouldn't be happy, but could they at least come up with some original material? Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is typical and predictable...“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?”he said at a news conference. “If they think

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-1746536515437089132008-06-26T13:21:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.299-07:00

I'm really sick and tired of hearing aspiring intellectuals chatter on about how the text of the 2nd Amendment is vague, ambiguous, or "open to interpretation". Go read Justice Scalia's opinion. He makes it abundantly clear that there is one and only one possible meaning to the text; that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes, regardless of their status within the

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-32419636353680347922008-06-26T08:15:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.300-07:00

I'm about 1/4 of the way through the opinion. I wonder Justice Stevens' backside is stinging.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-63551495090586783672008-06-26T07:55:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.300-07:00

Is it wrong of me to take delight in the fact that Justice Scalia quotes Justice Ginsburg in his discussion on the meaning of the phrase "bear arms"?

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-40289237179561654842008-06-26T07:25:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.300-07:00

Posted here.Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-28997645724170329702008-06-26T07:18:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.300-07:00

SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein reports that there's only one majority opinion; so, there's no ambiguity about what the Court means in the Scalia-authored opinion.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-18053261208403589732008-06-26T07:13:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.301-07:00

IS AFFIRMED!!!!!This means that the lower court ruling, which recognized an individual liberty, is upheld! Details to follow.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-59753380638101195692008-06-26T07:09:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.301-07:00

SCOTUS has released two opinions. Heller will be the last of the session.

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-74711195582898639592008-06-26T06:59:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.301-07:00

They've got a poll up on their LiveBlog...SCOTUSBlog

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5368236712441799212.post-82826263782974540242008-06-26T06:51:00.001-07:002008-06-28T09:13:24.302-07:00

Today's the day. Today we find out if the Court will respect the Constitution or if the Justices will mangle the language to see what isn't there and ignore what is.I've been going back and forth over the last few months as to how optimistic/pessimistic I feel about this Court. They've had a few boners (Which I won't go into details about here since those cases aren't about firearms rights, the

Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08974912945505887948noreply@blogger.com0