Moore v. Madigan

This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of Illinois' complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home. Illinois is the last state to have such a ban, and the 7th Circuit has found it unconstitutional.

Judge Posner's opinion is here [pdf]. There are three relevant points:

1. To deny the right to keep and bear arms outside the confines of the home is to divorce it from its purpose of self-defense, and that's inconsistent with the Supreme Court's findings in Heller and McDonald.


2. Rational basis doesn't fly when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Illinois needed to make a "strong showing" to justify a ban on carry, and they failed to do so.


3. Claims that public safety may be adversely affected (the "blood in the streets" argument) are unclear, inconclusive, and have little bearing.

This is a big win, and not just for Illinois. Congratulations are due to the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA). This wasn't an easy one.

Meanwhile, in Chicago...

Illinois State Senator Donne Trotter has long opposed the idea of allowing civilian concealed carry in his state. During a 1995 hearing on the matter, he had this to say:

There's a lot of individuals out here who do look at this as an opportunity to be that vigilante, to be that support person to the police officer who isn't there, which is one of the things we addressed just yesterday (...) What you're doing here just basically creating part-time police officers who have not gone through the extensive training, who have not had the psychological evaluations, who will be getting out there who feel now that they're--they are stronger, they are badder, they are tougher because they have this nine-shooter on their hip.

...and on Wednesday, he was arrested for attempting to bring a concealed handgun through security at O'Hare airport.

This one really speaks for itself, so I'll just leave it at that.

Return of the Glock 7

It looks like the anti-gunners will do anything to push that "conversation" they keep saying they want with us. Today's example is a demand by Brady Campaign poster boy Steve Israel to renew the Undetectable Firearms Act.

Signed into law by President Reagan in 1988, the Act was a response to fears over newer methods of fabricating firearms parts. At the time, there was great concern about the polymer frame of the new Glock pistol, and the possibility that it could be invisible to airport metal detectors ⁽¹⁾.

It sunset after ten years in 1998. It was then resurrected and signed in 2003 by President Bush ⁽²⁾ as Public Law 108-174. It is set to expire again next year.

So, why the big push for renewal? Folks are using 3d printers to make guns. You might think this is illegal, but it's not. The Gun Control Act is fairly silent on this, prohibiting only the assembly of NFA items or "non-sporting" guns made from imported parts. If you make them with the specific intention of resale for profit, you could run into trouble for manufacturing without a license and failing to pay the ITAR fees. Otherwise, you're good to go.

It looks like the technology isn't quite there yet, but it will be very soon. It'll be very interesting to see what folks will come up with when they decide to get original and stop wasting time making lowers for Eugene Stoner's poodle shooter.

(1) That is, it would be, if you removed the steel parts, which would include the slide, barrel, firing pin, firing pin spring, locking block, extractor, trigger pins, trigger bar, recoil spring, frame rails, slide lock, slide lock spring, trigger bar, magazine catch spring, and connector. So, um. Yeah. It is, however, fun to ask Glock sales reps when they're going to market the Glock 7, just to watch them bristle.

(2) In case you didn't notice, both Presidents who signed the Ban were Republicans. Feel free to stop ramming that whole Republicans=Pro Gun/Democrats=Anti Gun cliche down my throat any time, folks.

Dave Brubeck 1920-2012

Dave Brubeck passed away one day short of his 90th birthday. Most people know him for "Take Five," which might be the most popular piece of music ever written in 5/4. One of his talents was performing in odd time signatures, and he was able to do so with grace and flair.



Time Out is one of the best-selling jazz records in history, and rightfully so. The follow-up was Time Further Out, which I consider to be an even better record, and his 1963 Carnegie Hall performance is phenomenal.

He was never the biggest revolutionary on the scene, but he never aspired to that. He was a tremendous influence on pianists and composers who followed, and he leaves us with a splendid body of recorded work.

Piers Morgan. Again.

I'm not sure why CNN hired this hack. He used to run the Daily Mirror, a British newspaper a scant step above tabloids in credibility. In 2004, they ran photographs purporting to show the Queen's Lancashire Regiment abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners.

It was a big deal. It made the cover of Time. It put Morgan on the map.

There was one small problem, however. The pictures were fake. In the ensuing fallout, Morgan was fired. To this day, he has not apologized.

So, now he's all over CNN, and he has a global reach for his opinions. He has gone on record supporting Bob Costas' prime-time television remarks on gun control, and he now thinks he understands the Bill of Rights.

If I'm to follow his interpretation of it, the 1st Amendment doesn't cover the mimeograph or the internet. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to wiretaps or surveillance drones. By his logic, the 8th Amendment provides no protection from kneecapping, electrocution, or waterboarding, since those things weren't around at the founding, either.

Good to know, Piers. Say, how many guys working your security detail carry guns?

Halftime Was a Downer

Saturday, a guy killed his girlfriend, then made a show of ending his own life in front of a bunch of folks. It's horrible and senseless, but because he happened to be a guy who got paid gobs of money to play a game, it became national news. At times like this, we need pretty people to tell us what to think. As we know from such luminaries as Bono and Janeane Garofalo, popular entertainers are the most qualified to do this.

Thing is, they don't know much about football, so we need a guy who gets paid gobs of money to talk about the people who get paid gobs of money to play the game. Enter Bob Costas. He has a truly epic toupee, but he's not much of a deep thinker. When he decided he had to say something on the matter, he chose to quote Jason Whitlock, another guy who gets paid gobs of money to blog about...well, you get the drift.

Since the writer in question (and by extension, Costas) chose to blame guns, the whole thing turned into a burbling crockpot of ermagherd.

Iain M. Banks: The Hydrogen Sonata

Iain Banks' Culture series doesn't lend itself to easy summations. Entire essays have been written on the world he set up, so I won't go into much detail.

Essentially, Banks has created a liberal utopia on a galactic scale. Given a limitless supply of easy energy and near-omnipotent manufacturing technology, the citizens of the Culture want for nothing material. Tedious administration is done by artificial intelligence, leaving normal folks to live their lives as they please. In such a society, property is an archaic concept, something that is even reflected in their language. With scarcity removed from the equation, the only real crime is coercion.

Still, every society hits a wall eventually. In Banks' world, self-destruction or a collapse into barbarism is unlikely, and the end point for civilizations is simple ennui. What do you do when you just feel like you're going through the motions, with nothing left to contribute?

Well, there's always suicide.

Going Mobile

I like the layout of this site, but it doesn't translate well to mobile devices.



When I wrote the theme, I rendered the elements in percentage units, rather than as fixed measurements. As a result, resizing the window allows text to reflow naturally. On the mobile version of Chrome, this works well, as zooming the body text adjusts the flow. However, the sidebar and header text are nearly impossible to see. Firefox simply zooms in on the text, without adjusting the flow.

So, I'm left with several options. The first is to change the structure of the site to be more compatible with phones and tablets. That's not very desirable, as it's going to lose functionality on the desktop. The second is to serve up a different theme for mobile devices. This entails maintaining two different versions of the site. No thanks.

The third option involves a WordPress plugin called WPtouch.

Wounded Warrior Project

A couple of weeks ago, Tom Gresham offered to interview someone from the Wounded Warrior Project. They declined, as they didn't want to appear on a show that promotes firearms. It struck many of us as odd, but it is confirmed on their website.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies.

As one would guess, this is more than a little controversial. WWP relented and sent Steve Nardizzi to speak on the show. The audio is here (11/18, part 1).

He claimed that the organization "obviously supports the 2nd Amendment" and cited their cross-promotions with hunting events. However, he also reiterated that WWP doesn't engage in "co-branding" with firearms manufacturers because there's a great deal of regulation on "cause-marketing opportunities," and that the return on investment isn't lucrative enough.

That's not any less insulting.

Personally, I remain conflicted. I find their policy offensive, but I can't argue with the good work they do. I have friends who've benefited from their assistance. If I were to terminate involvement with every company that didn't support the gun culture, I'd need to go through my house and throw a lot of things out.

Tamara Needs Our Help

So, I just got off a bout of food poisoning. I'm eating again, but if feels like someone's punched my stomach. That's unpleasant.

Tamara, fellow gun blogger, high queen of Coal Creek Armory, and lady with a S&W collection that puts mine to shame, has real problems. She's been diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma and needs to get work done. She doesn't have insurance, so this is coming out of her own pocket. Tamara's done a lot for the gun culture, and here's a chance to give something back in a tangible way.

There are several raffles being held to raise money, but if you want to go right to the source, hit the PayPal button on the sidebar of her page and send a donation directly.

Chris Muir also has an absolutely epic poster he's raffling off here for five bucks.

Executive Orders

There won't be any new gun control laws coming from the legislature any time in the near future. Why not? Because the President wants them. The Republicans have done a bang-up job of playing the obstructionist card the last few years, and I've little doubt they'll continue to do their best to deny him anything they can.

So, will he try to pull something "under the radar?" One of the concerns I frequently hear is that he'll resort to passing legislation through executive orders.

That's not how it works.

We don't have an exact definition of what an executive order is, nor do we know the full limits. Authority for them is attributed to Article II, Section 5, which states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To this end, executive orders are generally understood to grant the President the authority to enforce or facilitate a certain law.

But they are not used to make laws.

Four More Years

At this point, enough of the votes are in that it's safe to call it. The American people want President Obama to serve a second term.

Read that last part again. He was voted in, fair and square. There wasn't some liberal media conspiracy. There's no more elusive birth certificate silliness this time around. Simply put, the voters spoke.

If that's not good enough, and you just have to blame someone, I've got an apt candidate: the Tea Party.

Two years ago, I looked back on the wretched farce that was the 2010 midterm election and noted that the Tea Party was able to win seats. The question, however, was whether or not they could govern. The answer turns out to be a resounding no. Sure, they played it well for the fans back home by nipping at the President's heels at every turn, but let's discuss their actual achievements.

Anybody? Nope. I've got nothing.

Public perception of them was skeptical at best, especially following (what was at the time) the most expensive election in history. They set themselves up as a bunch of strident contrarians, but that only works so long. For some reason, they chose to play brinksmanship on the debt ceiling in 2011, culminating in threats of a government shutdown if they didn't get their way.

That backfired for Gingrich in 1995, and it backfired in 2011. If you were listening to anybody besides Hannity or O'Reilly, you'd have noticed the dramatic shift in public opinion to the negative. Not only had they forked the Republican party at a time it desperately needed unity, their actions left a stigma on the party as a whole.

This wasn't helped by the fact that their pet Presidential candidates were far-right hyper-religious types guaranteed to intimidate moderates and independents. By the time Romney stepped through the dust cloud to gain the nomination, it was obvious that even his own party wasn't too keen on him as a candidate.

All they had to do was not screw up, but they couldn't even manage that. So here we are: four more years of gridlock.