Many Bothans Died to Bring Us This Information

Let's just say I know a guy who once knew a guy who once sniffed paint with Julian Assange in college.  He sometimes gets, shall we say, privileged information.  Some of it is highly classified, as is what I'm about to share with you.

Seriously, let's not put this all over the internet, people.

We all know that the SCAR Mk-16 was recently dropped by SOCOM, and the government claimed they were going back to the M4.  I now have evidence that this is not the case, and that a vast government cover-up is at work.

“He Had Caps, Mike”

In the movie Serenity, Joss Whedon defined "hero" as "someone who gets other people killed."

Bill Husfelt and Ginger Littleton would have done well to know that.  Mr. Husfelt was apparently laboring under the impression that the gun held by Clay Duke was loaded with blanks.  After a security officer shot Duke, Husfelt remonstrated the officer as follows:

He had caps, Mike.  That's what he wanted right there, Mike.  That's why I was trying to talk to him:  I knew.

Perhaps Mr. Husfelt didn't notice the very real bullet holes in the floor and wall behind him.  When he chose to launch into a condescending lecture to Duke under the impression his weapon was harmless, he gambled the lives of every one in that room.

Then there's Ms. Littleton.  If you're going to play the hero and attack the bad guy, you'd better be able to stop him, because if you fail, there's a good chance that you're the one who pushed him over the edge.  Littleton's impulsive, impotent, and stupid purse-swinging antics could have gotten everyone in that room killed.

I find it even more worrisome that Ms. Littleton was safely away from the scene before she chose to re-enter and engage.

Look, folks:  our first clue things are going badly is when a guy spray paints a symbol on the wall and produces a weapon. That generally doesn't bode well. You don't have the option of wondering whether it's loaded, or whether he really means harm with it.  You assume the worst and act accordingly, especially when the lives of others are on the line.

...and I Am All out of Bubblegum

Who's Captain Tactical now?  Huh?  I can't hear you!



That's right, baby.  I am.

Then There Was One

I subscribe to a few anti-gun mailing lists. As such, I get weird emails from time to time. Some are ludicrous, some are informative, and lately, most of them carry a certain air of desperation.

Today's example: a request from the Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort urging me to sign a petition against reform of Wisconsin's carry laws. According to the petition,

Research shows that allowing more people to carry guns in more places will lead to one thing -- more tragedies.

That's odd, because most statistics I've seen prove quite the opposite. Perhaps if they'd provided a citation, I could research their allegation further. Alas, none seems forthcoming.

Not that it would help much. Carry reform in Wisconsin, though long overdue, is all but inevitable.  Once passed, Illinois will be the last state in the union that completely bans concealed carry.

An Atlas of Margins

I mean, what else would I call it?  Etude #29?  Now that would be a little pretentious.

An Atlas of Margins  (00:54)

Andrew Traver and the New Math

The ATF hasn't had a director for almost four years.  Former director Carl Truscott's reign was marked by numerous complaints about misappropriation of funds and poor treatment of employees.  Following his resignation in 2006, the parameters were changed, and Senate confirmation is now required for a nominee.

In the meantime, former prosecutor Michael Sullivan served as Acting Director, but was blocked from nomination for the permanent position.  Sullivan resigned January 20th, 2009, the day President Obama was sworn in.  Presumably, the idea was that the new President could find someone capable of passing confirmation hearings.

Andrew Traver isn't that person.

I Suppose There's Always the Bus

By now, John Tyner's video is national news, as it should be. This has gone too far.

I don't mind removing my shoes and putting them on the conveyor. It's a mild inconvenience. The metal detector has been used since the 1970's without significant complaint, so I'll comply. If I forget about the steel belt buckle and they have to pass the wand over me, so be it.

But hands on the crotch? Naked body images? Slow down there, tiger. I expect to be romanced first, and airport checkpoints don't have the ambience for that.

This goes far beyond petty indignity.

No other law enforcement agency in America has the right to do such an invasive search without proving reasonable suspicion based on "specific and articulable facts." We've endured enough of this "post-911 world" nonsense. It's not keeping us any safer.

Backlights, Maybe

Best heard from some distance.

Backlights, Maybe  (01:01)

It's Called Hubris

And it'll bite you in the rear every time.

The government is once again divided enough to prevent either party from pushing anything through without the approval of the people.  We once again have a bulwark against the Legislative branch acting as a rubber stamp for the Executive. We once again have some semblance of balance.

Whether one perceives them as a third party or a fork of the GOP, the Tea Party showed some clout tonight.  They proved themselves a force to be respected in Florida, Kentucky, and most shockingly, Wisconsin.

Now we see if they can govern.  We might just see a few of those promises about fiscal responsibility kept in the coming weeks and months.  Might.

If tonight was any indication, I'm not holding my breath.

Transit and Parallax

I often dream of trains.

Transit and Parallax  (00:27)

All Quiet on the 2nd Amendment Front

The Brady Campaign sent me an email this morning to let me know who they're endorsing for tomorrow's mid-term elections.  I have to say, the list is pretty thin.  This could be due to the fact that they only have $5,661 in cash to spend this cycle.

Mayors Against Illegal guns gave $150,000 to the Raben Group to spend on something, though I don't know what.  Founder Robert Raben also sits on the board of directors of the Alliance for Justice, a group that represents several progressive political causes, but doesn't seem involved in gun control.

Josh Sugarmann's Violence Policy Center currently shows a balance of zero.  That's a bit odd, since the Joyce Foundation has pumped roughly $2.1 million into various other groups under the ostensible heading of "Gun Violence."  Still, that money appears to be targeted towards university and community research programs, rather than towards political endorsements.

This Is Why We Pay Lawyers

Representing yourself in court is rarely a good idea.  Spend a day in traffic court if you want numerous demonstrations.  Some of those folks are incompetent to the point of amusement, but once in a while, someone comes along who is simply epic, for lack of a better word.

One of those people is Paul Hupp.  Mr. Hupp is a man of passion and conviction.  He's also quite the amateur litigant.  I say "amateur" because he didn't manage to procure admission to the California bar, then failed to get said denial overturned in court.

Feeling that his money was thus wasted on law school, he attempted to get his obligations to student loans discharged.  Failing in this, he tried to sue over the matter.  The result?  Failure.

See a pattern to this man's life yet?  It gets better.

Salendro

Some tonal liberties taken.

Salendro  (01:01)

Function Checks for Revolvers

...or, "what the heck you doin' that for?"

The market is being flooded with used revolvers right now.  There are some truly great deals to be had, but there are also a few pitfalls to avoid.  Many potentially terminal problems may not be immediately apparent.

Revolvers are generally very durable machines.  They'll endure decades of neglect, but that resilience means that some owners will inflict excessive abuse.  Some people will use them as test-beds for reckless handloads, and when the gun gives out, they'll sell it off to a hapless buyer.  Others see them as platforms for some truly questionable home gunsmithing experiments.

What follows is a list of things I check to ensure that the gun I'm evaluating hasn't been rendered unusable or unsafe.

Two if by Autumn

Two if by Autumn  (00:59)

Loop  (00:15)

Across the Atlantic

Last Friday, I had a very interesting conversation with a war correspondent from the UK Daily Mirror. He's been embedded with the SAS in Afghanistan. He's seen his share of guns, and he's done some shooting.

Personally, he's not fond of them, but nor is he hostile. In fact, he mentioned that gun crime is on the rise in London, and he wondered aloud if England's strict gun laws might be the cause rather than the solution.

This was going to be a very interesting conversation, indeed.

Talking to the Media

Would you look at that handsome devil?  How can this guy possibly be single?

A few months back, I spoke with a reporter from the Financial Times of England.  The interview went well, but as always, I was a bit misquoted.  Though the errors were not significant, and they did not distort my intent, they can be illustrative.

Ms. Fifield was a joy to speak with.  She has her reservations on widespread gun ownership, but she was open and honest about them, and much to my delight, she was a great listener.  She's also one of the few people I've met who can still take notes in shorthand.  We spoke at great length about the history, context, and implications of the 2nd Amendment.

As you can see from the article, she had a great deal of ground to cover, and the fact that she took trouble to get all the technical terminology correct shows marvelous attention to detail.  It's only natural that a few things get transposed.

A (Slightly) Tarnished Masterpiece

When it comes to guns, I'm not much of a "collector."  Sure, it's nice to have one in fine cosmetic shape, but I don't mind a bit of character, especially in one that shoots this well.  Box and papers don't mean much to me, and I'd sooner have a working gun than one I'm tempted to stow away in the safe.

As K-38's go, this one wouldn't seem too special at first.  It shipped in 1975, the same year Maggie Thatcher ascended to power and Francisco Franco stepped down.  Minnie Riperton was big in the charts, and Jimmie Hoffa stopped filing tax returns.

At that point, the Model 15 was still standard-issue in the United States Air Force, as well as several police departments.  This specimen was issued to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.



The department in question phased the 15 out around 1985 in favor of the Beretta 92, and by 1990, the Air Force would do the same.  More than a few Vietnam veterans maintain a sentimental tie to the weapon, and for good reason.

MiniDisc on Linux

A group of German programmers has figured out the MiniDisc communication protocols, and they've written software that allows certain units to communicate with computers without the SonicStage software layer.  The nuts-and-bolts are here, and a streamlined installation for Ubuntu is available here.

The Rural Twilight Initiative

The Rural Twilight Initiative  (00:54)

Loop  (00:13)

Not really named for the Civil Twilight Collective, but I do think they're on to something quite worthwhile.  The crickets are fantastic in Georgia this time of year.

U.S. v. Williams

Adam Williams was convicted in Indiana for distribution of narcotics and possession of a firearm as a felon in 2008.  He chose to appeal his conviction to the 7th Circuit on several points, one of which was the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1).  The section in question bars convicted felons from owning firearms.

The Court's opinion is here [pdf].  Williams based his appeal in part on the Skoien decision, which has since been remanded.  The Court considered the applicability of that case in the current proceedings and found it wanting:

And although we recognize that § 922(g)(1) may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent, that is not the case for Williams. Even if the government may face a difficult burden of proving § 922(g)(1)’s “strong showing” in future cases, it certainly satisfies its burden in this case, where Williams challenges § 922(g)(1) as it was applied to him. Williams, as a violent felon, is not the ideal candidate to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). [p. 16]

Skoien considered the question of a misdemeanant, not a felon.  Furthermore, there is a big difference between a felony conviction for writing a few bad checks and one for violence.  Under the Skoien doctrine of "intermediate" scrutiny (and perhaps even strict scrutiny), the court finds that a ban on firearms possession by violent felons passes muster. Part of me agrees.

Woollard v. Sheridan et Alii

The 2nd Amendment Foundation is spearheading a lawsuit [pdf] to challenge Maryland's rigid scheme on the issuance of concealed carry permits.  In short, a civilian seeking a permit for "personal protection" must show "documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses."

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard should therefore meet the criteria.  According to the complaint, his home was broken into on Christmas Eve, 2002.  Woollard was beaten by the intruder, and it took police over two hours to respond to his wife's 911 call.  His assailant was sentenced to probation at first, then imprisoned after assaulting a police officer.

Upon the assailant's release only three years later, Mr. Woollard was issued a permit.  In 2009, his renewal was denied by the defendants, who cited a lack of evidence to "support apprehended fear (i.e. - copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, stalking).”

The man who assaulted Mr. Woollard in his home now lives three miles from him.  If that doesn't qualify as "apprehended fear," I'm not sure what does.

My Darkest LIght Will Shine

A very, very loose cover of the old Felt song.

My Darkest Light Will Shine (00:53)

Loop (00:17)

Weird Handgun Buying Criteria, Part 1

Today's issue: difficulty using the slide release on an empty magazine.

This is an utterly irrelevant issue. First off, that little lever on the left side of the gun is a slide stop, not a slide release. Notice the somewhat inconvenient placement on many guns. To release the slide, the proper technique involves pulling the slide to the rear and letting it "slingshot" into battery.

Now, I'm aware that there are very experienced and knowledgeable shooters who use the slide stop as a release. They're not wrong, but that method has its drawbacks. In a stress situation, fine motor skills evaporate. Operating a small, oddly-positioned lever with shaking, sweaty hands will be problematic at best.

If you try the slingshot method on a pistol with an empty magazine inserted, you'll quickly discover that it does not work. Why not? Because you're not supposed to drop the slide in that state. The whole idea is that the gun locks up to tell you it's empty and needs reloading. Insert a live magazine, and the slide drops easily.

There is nothing wrong with a gun on which it is difficult to drop the slide on an empty magazine.

Herter's Ammunition Isn't

George Herter was a character, to say the least.  He made a living making and selling things he liked, and while eccentric at times, many of his wares were quite good.  By his own estimation, everything he made was the Best Thing Ever.  I've seen the old catalogs, and some of the claims are hilarious.

Hyperbole aside, I have some of his 6.5x55 ammunition, and it's very accurate.  Some folks think he used Norma components.  By all accounts, his ammunition was good stuff.  He was also known for developing some interesting wildcat cartridges.

His company went out of business years ago, so I was quite surprised to see people showing up to the range recently with newly-minted pistol ammunition bearing the Herter's name and crest.  More sobering have been the two catastrophic failures I've seen it cause.

Me the Optimist

I didn't mean for this to come out sounding like Tim Hecker.  I really didn't, but hey, these things happen.

Me the Optimist (00:48)

U.S. v Skoien Decided

We've got our first post-McDonald decision [pdf], and it's a bit of a disappointment.  Judge Skyes' original decision, in which the 7th Circuit had applied strict scrutiny to the "core right" of the 2nd Amendment and "intermediate" scrutiny to the rest, has been overturned.

The Heller dicta regarding "presumptively lawful" regulations and "longstanding prohibitions" were on full display here.  I worry that those two phrases will continue to cause us trouble into the foreseeable future.

For now, the constitutionality of §922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) still stands, and the bar for scrutiny has been lowered from strict to intermediate scrutiny across the board:

The United States concedes that some form of strong showing (“intermediate scrutiny,” many opinions say) is essential, and that §922(g)(9) is valid only if substantially related to an important governmental objective.  [p. 8]

The Ends of Invention

An exercise in harmonics and ring modulation.

The Ends of Invention  (00:55)

Attention All Planets of the Solar Federation

If you recognize that quote, you're a Rush geek like me.  If not, I really can't help you.

There may be no other band in popular music that has so sharply illuminated the divide between critics and normal folks.  On one hand, cool guys like Robert Christgau and JD Constantine despise them.  On the other, they've sold 40 million records and they continue to fill arenas worldwide.

If it were my career, I'd take the opinion of millions of loyal fans over some guy who gets paid to write witty boilerplate any time.  I've always wondered how the guys in Rush felt about all this, and now we've got the answer.

Beyond the Lighted Stage is a documentary produced by the same guys who did last year's great Iron Maiden film.  For a band that's been around for nearly four decades, it's well past time we got something like this.

And fortunately, it's marvelously done.

McDonald v. Chicago: Contours and Concerns

So, we won. Or did we?

As David Cohen points out, Chicago theoretically won on both arguments.  The margins can be interpreted more than one way.  In essence, this case was an 8-1 loss for Gura's Privileges or Immunities argument.  Given that Justice Thomas’ vote was for PorI, we can also see this as a 4-5 loss for Due Process incorporation.

I’m going to throw temperance to the wind for a moment and suggest that Clarence Thomas is the only Justice currently sitting with a spine.

We did achieve a very important philosophical victory, but the practical ramifications remain to be seen.

Scintilla

Scintilla  (01:44)

Made using the pulse of PSR B0329+54 as a metronome.

McDonald v. Chicago, 5-4

The 7th Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago has been reversed by the Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings.  That means we won.

To some extent, that is.

The ruling [pdf] was a narrow 5-4 decision, and the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

We get incorporation, but Slaughterhouse stands.

McDonald v. Chicago: Come Monday

Monday is the last day for opinions, and the consensus seems to be that the opinion for McDonald v. Chicago will be written by Justice Alito.

From a 2nd Amendment perspective, this is a good thing.  It may also be glad tidings for the 14th.

Jim March thinks that having Justice Alito author the opinion signals the Court's willingness to revive the Privileges or Immunities clause.  I'd lost hope for that mechanism when I first parsed the oral arguments.  Justice Scalia's naked rancor for the approach seemed to have doomed it in favor of Due Process.

However, Mr. March points out a couple of utterances from Justice Alito that I'd missed, including his invocation of Justice Harlan (the 1st), himself a champion of total incorporation.  Alito has also been in agreement with Justice Thomas in the majority of cases, and Thomas has been an ardent defender of an originalist reading of the 14th Amendment.

I'm still not sure that the Court is ready to ignite a small revolution in jurisprudence, but I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

H.R. 5175

H.R. 5175, also known as the DISCLOSE Act, passed the House 219-206 yesterday.  The NRA exemption is still intact, but this will affect a large spectrum of political groups.

It's unlikely it will be heard by the Senate before recess next week, but they will push for passage afterwards.  Chambliss and Isakson have both assured me that they will be voting against it, but anyone outside of Georgia needs to get in touch with their Senators immediately regarding this.

Georgia Representatives who voted for the Act were Hank Johnson, John Lewis and David Scott.  I find it inconceivable that we have nobody in those districts who would be opposed to the Act, yet my understanding from one Representative is that I was one of only three people to contact him regarding it.

For all the chest-beating and screaming about it, nobody's actually doing anything.  Given all the "I'm not going to take it any more" slogans I get chanted at me all day, it's blatantly obvious that most of these people can't even get off the couch to call their Congressmen.

This is how we lose.

H.R. 1575 a callous, cynical, arrogant measure designed to thwart the very idea of "fairness" that its advocates claim they lost with the Citizens United decision.  Even though it can be challenged (and likely overturned) in court, that won't take place until after this year's midterm elections.

Which is just long enough to help the re-election prospects of those who sponsored it.

Windframe21

Windframe21 (00:48)

Loop (00:08)

Wait...what?

Just yesterday, the Gun Owners of America was castigating the NRA for supposedly "selling out" other gun organizations by carving themselves an exemption from the provisions of HR 5175 (also known as the DISCLOSE Act).  Today, they're taking credit for killing the thing.  Go figure.

The NRA's "carve out" exemption was the poison pill that killed the act.  The 1st Amendment is at best a tangential issue for the NRA, but in this case, they had to get involved to protect the interests of their membership.  Getting directly involved in a 1st Amendment battle takes them a bit off the reservation, but tainting the bill with an exemption that was bound to offend its sponsors was a good strategy.

It may be cynical, but it works.  Two years in a row, sponsors of the DC Voting Rights Act have chosen to abandon efforts at passage rather than accept reforms to the District's onerous gun laws.

If anything, this whole situation proves that the Blue Dogs are still active, and that they've got a healthy fear of the NRA.

Of course, those with little or no understanding of politics didn't get this.  Even Cleta Mitchell, for whom I now regret voting, had to jump in and cry foul.  It's truly depressing how many people will nip at the NRA's heels while happily riding their coattails.

Autechre: Move of Ten

Only three months, and we've got the EP to accompany Oversteps.  Thank goodness Bleep is doing American distribution.  With the dollar the way it is, this would have been about $623.95 if I'd ordered it from England.

No record is worth that much unless it has Tiny Tim.  We've got a recession going here, and we have to hitch a ride with the Russians just to get into orbit these days.  I mean, really.  One has to have priorities.

But, is it worth ten bucks?  Definitely.

S&W SD Series

The SD9 and SD40 are Smith & Wesson's most recent polymer pistols. Their price places them squarely between the Sigma and M&P, which would be around $420 on the street.

The Sigma pistols are excellent guns for the money, but a few things have always been lacking.  First off is the dreadful trigger pull, which is a long and uneven.  They have plastic sights which are prone to breakage during adjustment, and the accessory rail is of proprietary design.

The SD pistols seem to address these issues.  In fact, it appears that this model is simply an improved Sigma in many respects.  What follows is a brief comparison.

The Echo Protocol

The Echo Protocol  (00:49)

Initial Loop  (00:08)

CZ P-01 Revisited

18 months now, ~2400 rounds, one failure.  One, and that was with oddball 147gr subsonic ammunition.  The pistol has fed nine separate factory defensive loadings and countless target loads without fail.

I continue to be quite pleased with it.

One Hundred Days of Wind

Named for the windy season in Afghanistan that a friend is currently enduring.

One Hundred Days of Wind (01:05)

Deadly Force and Morality

Unfortunate as it is, the Roger Witter incident in Portland gives us the opportunity to consider one very important fact:  human life is worth more than any property.

Mr. Witter wasn't protecting anyone from harm.  Two shoplifters were leaving the scene without violence.  Furthermore, he showed an utter disregard for the 4th cardinal rule of gun safety when he fired after them in the direction of a busy rail station.

He placed people in danger to serve a very surreal definition of civic duty.  In the moment he pointed a firearm at someone and pulled the trigger, he equated a piece of merchandise with a human life.

Please think long and hard about that.

The most important lesson I ever learned about the defensive use of firearms comes from Massad Ayoob.  Loosely recalled, it reads like this:  human life is the most precious thing in this world.  If you can't recognize its worth, you have no right to a tool that so easily robs someone of it.

I don't care what the law in a given locality might allow, or what a grand jury might say.  Things can be replaced.  Life cannot be.  Pulling a trigger is easy; absolution is not.

Guns are marvelously efficient tools for rending flesh and bone.  They can be a tool of malice or coercion in the hands of the oppressor or the criminal.  They can also preserve life in the face of imminent harm.

Just be sure you know the difference.

The Ceaseless Now

A loose canon for electric bass and fuzz pedal.

The Ceaseless Now  (01:52)

Dénouement (0:08)

As Good As It Gets

The President has picked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to take Justice Stevens' seat on the Supreme Court.  Kagan is a safe bet for the administration.  She's got excellent credentials, and there don't seem to be any significant controversies in her past.  Confirmation will likely be somewhat uneventful.

In any case, no matter what her politics may be, it's unlikely she'll be able to shift the Court to the left in the way Stevens sometimes was.

The legal community seems to have a great deal of respect for her. While Dean at Harvard Law School, she was able to unite disparate political factions, and even to earn the respect of conservatives. Ilya Somin points out that she's got the intellectual credentials, and more important, she's willing to accept views that differ from her personal politics. On matters of the 1st Amendment, Rick Pildes thinks she would have voted with the majority in Citizens United.

Face it, folks.  We weren't going to get a conservative.  In the balance of things, this was the best possible outcome.

S&W Highway Patrolman

This specimen was manufactured in 1979. The Steelers won the Super Bowl, Voyager photographed the rings of Jupiter, Greenland gained home rule, and Disco began its rapid downward spiral.

We also had the Jimmy Carter Rabbit Incident. That one never gets old.

Virginia Gets It

HB 1217 has passed in Virginia.  The bill allows local elementary schools to teach firearms safety to students, using the NRA's Eddie Eagle program as a template.

Predictable but impotent resistance came from the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a Brady Campaign partner.  The VCPC is an affiliate of States United to Prevent Gun Violence, who recently merged with Joyce Foundation beneficiary Freedom States Alliance (*).

A spokesperson for the VCPC lamented that firearms safety training did not belong in the schools, and that it is "up to the parents to teach that at home."  With the latter, I agree.

The problem is, that's not happening.  If parents were doing their jobs, this wouldn't be an issue.

NRA Bashing

Apparently, some folks are unhappy with the NRA's actions leading up to the passage of SB 308.  In fact, they're so riddled with angst, they're quitting the NRA and urging others to do so.

Why?  The claim is that the NRA withdrew their support for the bill because the language re-legalizing carry in the insecure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport was stripped from the final version.   Allegations have been made that NRA lobbyists pressured Senators to vote against the bill, and that they attempted to "sabotage" it.

As far as I can gather, this comes from three sources:

• a poorly-written article with a misspelled title


• a claim from an organization that's voiced hostility to the NRA before, and


• the utterances of two Senators who were opposed to the bill's passage.

Of course, none of the three people who foamed at the mouth to me about it in person could tell me exactly what was said, who said it, or in what context it was said.

Well, if you're making a claim like that, I'd expect proof, not hearsay.

Luma 7-4

Luma 7-4 (01:41)

Condensed (00:19)

D.C Voting Rights Act Dead

Some folks may remember last summer's dust-up over this. There was a bill before Congress to get the District of Columbia a seat in the House. John Ensign tacked the Second Amendment Enforcement Act onto it, and it became something of a poison pill. Democrats were unable to excise his amendment, and if the District was to get a house seat, they'd have to comply with the Heller ruling.

Rather than risk abandoning the District's unconstitutional and disastrous regulations, Congress chose to simply drop the whole matter completely.

Well, history repeats itself, though rarely this quickly. This year's version quickly found the Ensign amendment attached to it, and again Congress chose not to decide.

Paul Helmke's response was to gloat, calling the whole thing a "Faustian bargain" and voicing his pleasure that the District would be sticking to its guns, even if it cost them something advocates of DC statehood consider to be a huge priority.

It all raises a difficult question, however. What if Congress had chosen to pass the bill, with the Ensign amendment? Would it have been worth the compromise?

Washington DC isn't a state, and as such, they don't qualify for representation. The Supreme Court ruled as such twice, in District of Columbia v. Murphy (1941) and District of Columbia v. Carter (1973). Article I and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment only mention the states as being entitled to send representatives to the House.

Clearly, there's a need to enforce Heller in some way. The District is doing their best to ignore the constitutional rights of its citizens, as well as the ruling of the Supreme Court.  But would we be playing a little too fast and loose with the Constitution if we supported the Voting Rights Act to further the cause of the 2nd Amendment?

That's not a rhetorical question.  Do the ends justify the means, and do we risk making some Faustian deals ourselves?

Crosstalk over I-94

There's an area around Lake Erie where several commercial radio stations share the same frequency.  On a clear night, you can hear straight across to Canada as the signals bleed together.   For some people, it makes for annoying interference.  For others, the result ends up being something far more interesting than the sum of its parts.

Crosstalk over I-94  (02:10)

Crosstalk over I-94

There's an area around Lake Erie where several commercial radio stations share the same frequency.  On a clear night, you can hear straight across to Canada as the signals bleed together.   For some people, it makes for annoying interference.  For others, the result ends up being something far more interesting than the sum of its parts.

Crosstalk over I-94  (02:10)

Sunday Info Dump #2

My order from El Paso Saddlery arrived Friday, and here's their Tom Threepersons holster for the 3" Model 65:





I was pleasantly surprised by their turnaround time: just over four weeks.

In other news, Leonard Embody, Cassidy Nicosia and Kurk Kirby have a new compatriot in David Walters.

Justice Stevens and the New Balance

It turns out that this will be Justice Stevens' last term on the Supreme Court.  Even if we see one liberal Justice replaced with another, the ideological balance of the Court is unlikely to change.

At least, on the surface.

One of Stevens' strengths was building across-the-aisle consensus among dissenting Justices.  He was often able to corral or curtail Justice Kennedy's traditional swing vote, but a younger Justice will not have the ability to do so.  As such, Kennedy's role on the Court is about to become much more important.

His vote with the majority in the Heller decision showed a willingness to accept the 2nd Amendment at face value, and without anyone to sway him away, I'd guess we can expect him to rule in our favor in subsequent challenges.

I'm sure the 2nd Amendment will be a significant issue in confirmation hearings.  How much of an issue, I'm not sure.  After all, McDonald v. Chicago will likely be settled law one way or another at that point.  Still, Tom Coburn's on the committee, so expect to see nominees put on the hot seat about the matter.

The real 800lb gorilla in the room will be the Citizens United decision.  This one created a rather large political divide, including a histrionic and inappropriate reprimand from the President during this year's State of the Union address.  There are still lingering questions of corporate personhood and free speech tied up in the issue.

Then there's the spectre of the midterm elections.  A number of Democratic senators, some on the Judiciary Committee, see their jobs on the chopping block.  They're already taking heat for their blind support of the Health Care Reform Bill, and rushing an ultra-liberal Justice through the process isn't going to gain them any clout among constituents who are already seething at what they see as a far-left agenda.

For these folks, the midterm slogans will be characterized by words like "bipartisanship" and "moderate."  Traditional controversial issues like abortion, terrorism and judicial "activism" will be front and center.  If they've got any sense of political self-preservation, they'll do their best to confirm the most inoffensive candidate possible.

Which would be a win on several levels.

S&W Model 65

This 65-3 was produced in 1987.  Other notable events from that year include Gary Hart dropping out of the Presidential race, Sonny Bono running for the office of Mayor of Palm Springs, and Ronald Reagan delivering what was possibly his most important speech.  U2 released The Joshua Tree, and Rick Astley's song "Never Gonna Give You Up" reached #1 on both sides of the Atlantic, long before anybody with taste found it the least bit ironic.

The Model 65 was produced from 1972 until 2004.  It was the fixed-sight counterpart to the 66, and was carried by the Customs Service, as well as several state police agencies.

A common misconception is that the 65 was a stainless version of the Model 13.  This isn't entirely true, as the 13 was not introduced until 1974.  Prior to that, the blued counterpart to the 65 was the 10-6, which had been upgraded to .357.  While the 19 and 66 were referred to as the Combat Magnums, the 65 and 13 were never explicitly named.  Given their heritage, they could be referred to as the Military & Police Magnums.

Both the 13 and 65 share the distinction of being among the last standard-issue revolvers in law enforcement. There's some confusion as to which was the last issue revolver for the F.B.I.  As far as I can tell, it varied by field office and starting date, but agents were carrying both well into the 1980's.

Vibrational Dynamics for 500

Vibrational Dynamics for 500  (01:15)

Back to the D.C. Circuit

The Washington D.C. District Court has handed down its opinion in Heller v. D.C. [pdf]. Joshua Blackman has an analysis that renders any of mine redundant.

Following the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, the District did its absolute best to comply with the Court's ruling as little as possible.  Though citizens were theoretically allowed to register handguns, the process involves jumping some pretty substantial hurdles.  Dick Heller brought suit on three points:

1. the District's registration scheme in general,


2. the ban on "assault weapons," and


3. restrictions on magazine capacity.

The District Court rejected strict scrutiny, finding that all three measures met with intermediate scrutiny.

The Call of Duty Effect

Anyone who's worked in a gun store knows that guy. He's in his early 20's and usually comes in with a couple of friends. They want to see specific guns:  the Deagle, the M4, the SCAR, anything in "fifty cal." Most of all, they'd love a chance to fondle the ever-elusive ACR.

Soldiers on leave? Procurement agents for law enforcement? Well-heeled NRA High-Power competitors? No.

These are the Call of Duty generation.

Once handing them the gun used to kill the terrorists in Level 7, you'll spend a good ten minutes reminding them with increasing sternness not to sweep other patrons with the muzzle. They'll usually pull out a cell-phone and take pictures of their friends posing with it. They'll tell you it's the most "badass" gun in the whole game, and how they totally own the noobs with it.

Goofy as they might be, I've never dealt with one whom I considered to be the least bit dangerous. Though there's a certain fetishism at work, they don't seem to idolize the weapon for its destructive potential. They simply think it's a neat artifact in and of itself.

Thus arises the question of overlap between shooters and gamers.

This Isn't Over

So here we are.  H.R. 3962 has passed in the House.  It looks likely to pass in the Senate unless the Republicans can kill it with amendments.  Should they fail, it'll become law this week.

I'm glad today's my day off.  I have to endure enough ignorant political prattle at work as it is, and I can only imagine the coarse level of discourse today.  By now, somebody's come up with another silly parody of the President's name, and they're going to hue and cry about the results, even though most of those doing so did absolutely nothing to stop it from happening.

In her speech preceding the vote, Speaker Pelosi said,

"Another Speaker, Tip O'Neill, once said, "all politics is local."  And I say to you tonight that when it comes to health care for all Americans, "all politics is personal."

Perhaps if Americans had taken that advice to heart, none of this would have happened.  Instead, many self-proclaimed conservatives, deciding that they already smelled doom, decided simply not to vote in the last election. I watched it happen among people I knew.  The other side mobilized; we wasted time and energy squabbling amongst ourselves.

That's why we lost in 2006, and again in 2008.  That's why we lost last night.

S&W 3" Model 10

This revolver was made when the TRS-80 was the pinnacle of computing technology.  Blade Runner was in theaters. Ingrid Bergman and John Belushi died, and Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.

Even if the J. Geils Band and Survivor aren't with us any more, Smith & Wesson still is.

The Model 10 has been around in one form or another for over a century.  Until this year, it has enjoyed an unbroken production run, the longest of any firearm in existence.  That's not hard to understand, as the .38 Hand Ejector is a reliable, accurate and powerful platform.  All modern double-action revolvers can trace their lineage to it.

Reaping the Whirlwind

Leonard Embody has received notice that this Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit is being revoked.  If you don't know this guy's background, I've written on it here.

This was his response to the media:

"I'm a private person," Embody said. "I didn't want to be in the spotlight. I didn't want my name in the news reports."

...which would be why he has gone to great lengths to bait law-enforcement with his antics, posting the results to every internet forum and blog he could find.  His last stunt was to walk down the streets of Belle Meade in an orange reflective vest, carrying an 1851 Navy in his right hand.

Apparently, this didn't go as well as he'd hoped.  In response to this incident, the Belle Meade police department made the recommendation to the Tennessee Department of Safety that Mr. Embody's permit be revoked.  The text of their letter reads, in part,

This request is not made lightly and based on the increasingly unsafe methods of displaying and/or carrying a firearm by Leonard Stanni Embody over the past 24 months.

Leonard Stanni Embody has show by his actions that he is repeatedly engaging in behavior while carrying or displaying a firearm that compromises the safety of the general public, responding law enforcement officers, and his own.

Leonard Stanni Embody did carry the weapon in an unsafe manner, in an unsafe location and in an unsafe condition.  Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-1352 (a) (3) states that any actions by the permit holder that poses [sic] a material likelihood of risk or harm to the public will be grounds to suspend or revoke a handgun permit.

Recent incidents that have been well documented and published by Leonard Stanni Embody clearly show that his actions clearly are for his own benefit and do not represent the actions of a responsible citizen wishing to safely carry a handgun for legitimate purposes. [emphasis mine]

This whole situation begs a very sticky ethical question.  Is it right that, in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing, Mr. Embody's permit is being revoked?

Donuts Don't Wear Alligator Shoes

New rule: if you're irresponsible enough to forget your weapon and leave it at the range, we're going to use it to stage goofy pictures.  I really wanted to do a parody of the final frame of Black Dynamite, but asking employees to curl up around my legs could constitute grounds for a lawsuit in some quarters.

If you haven't seen the movie, you should.  Heck, if Sandra Bullock can get an Oscar for whatever it is she did, Michael Jai White deserves one for pulling off lines like this with a straight face:

Doctor Wu, your knack for biological scientific transmogrification is only matched by your zest for Kung-Fu treachery!

I've been using that one all week, regardless of context.  I get odd looks sometimes.

The gun is a Kel-Tec PLR-16.  It was left in a faux Pelican case with a bunch of spare magazines and several hundred rounds of Wolf ammunition. Given the demographic of people who buy guns like this in lieu of decent ones, I'd assume that there was a DVD of Boondock Saints in the case at some point as well.  Unfortunately, we did not recover that.

Of course, nobody ever leaves guns laying about that we'd actually want to shoot.  Such is life.

Starbucks in the Crosshairs

I've had an on-again-off-again relationship with Starbucks for as long as I can remember.  Their prepared drinks are spendy, but as a guy who grinds his own, I've found their Cafe Verona to be very versatile, and the Ethiopian Sidamo balances nicely with steamed milk.

I'd never really considered their policy on guns.  Heck, it's a coffee shop.  It's frequented by pseudo-intellectuals whose offspring are white kids with dreadlocks.  Despite the lack of any signage stating so, I'd always assumed they wouldn't be too fond of guns.

Therefore, it came as something of a pleasant surprise to find out that they're not caving to pressure from the Brady Campaign to ban guns from their stores.

I may have to spend more money there.

Watering the Tree of Liberty

Judge Frank Easterbrook took the stand today in the case against Hal Turner.

Turner really wanted to be Glenn Beck, but all he ever amounted to was a guy with a small cancelled radio show and a website he used to convey his views about white supremacy.  He was a Holocaust denier who acted for a time as an informant for the FBI against his own kind.

It turns out that Turner was just a bit miffed at Easterbrook's decision in NRA v. Chicago last June, and his reaction was quite intemperate:

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.

He then provided the home addresses of 7th Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer to his readers.

Does this constitute an actual threat or conspiracy? That's up to the jury, but it certainly wasn't wise in any case.  I, for one, am certainly sick of hearing the phrase "watering the tree of liberty" thrown around so casually.

Turner could face up to ten years in prison. Let's hope he has to watch reruns of Space 1999 the whole time.

For Justice Breyer

Justice Breyer came up with this concept during oral arguments today, and it was too fruity to pass up.

Still, I take from what you are saying that -- let's make up an imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart, and we give it to James Madison and the other framers.  And he would say insofar as that right to bear arms is important for the purpose of maintaining the militia, it's high on the ordered liberty chart.  Insofar as the right to bear arms is there to shoot burglars, it's low on the ordered liberty chart.

He's obviously going to be writing a dissent in McDonald (he still hasn't gotten over Heller), and he'll need all the help he can get, so I figured I'd run with his idea and cobble together a handy visual aid.

McDonald v Chicago: Oral Arguments

Long story short, with the exception of Breyer, there appears to be no significant opposition to incorporation through Due Process.  With the exception of Ginsburg, the Court showed no interest in revisiting the Privileges or Immunities clause.

So, it's a win, but only for the 2nd Amendment. Although Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank stand for the time being, incorporation here will whittle away at them, as it did in Gitlow and Benton.

The transcript [pdf] is up here. Josh Blackman was there, and has his commentary here.

I was saddened to see how quickly Scalia and Roberts dismissed the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse. I'd worried that Scalia would be opposed to revisiting Privileges or Immunities, and I was sadly proven right.

Regarding selective incorporation, a doctrine he's been wary of in the past, Scalia said, "As much as I think it's wrong, even I have acquiesced in it."

Breyer's "imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart" is truly a surreal idea. He tried to get a few digs in at the Heller majority but failed. He did his best to waste some of Gura's time with irrelevancies.

Autechre: Oversteps

As usual, I never know what to expect from a new Autechre record.  The fact that the Designers Republic was back on board for artwork should have been something of a clue.

This is certainly the most consistent and approachable that they've been in years.  The record is restrained and focused, and there's a real emphasis on melody.  They've jettisoned the hyper-abstraction and claustrophobic mixing of Untilted, and the disjointed chaos of Quaristice has been reined in.  What's left is an album that doesn't convey the need to prove anything.

It's all the more satisfying for that.

This is a patient record with a unified character.  There's a sense of space and breathing room that's quite welcome.  The atmosphere is reminiscent of Envane's quieter moments and several tracks lack percussion entirely.

Before everyone starts screaming, "OMG ambient record!  They remade Amber FTW," bear in mind that this is a more mature animal.  It's learned a few things since then, and its teeth are a bit sharper than they were fifteen years ago.

McDonald v. Chicago: the 11th Hour

Oral arguments are tomorrow morning at 10:00 EST.  Check for transcripts after lunch.

Though they did so in Heller, the Court has chosen not to allow a recording of the proceedings.  I'd have hoped that, with Souter gone, the Court would consider broadcasting, but that appears not to be the case.

Though the Justices' minds are likely made up at this point, the tenor and nature of their questions may give us an idea where they lean.  It should be fun to see Chicago counsel dissemble while trying to pretend Heller didn't mean what it said.

They're obviously nervous.  Mayor Daley has stooped to trotting out Blair Holt's parents to cry on cue for the cameras, and we have this missive from Dennis A. Henigan, in which he cites the same tired, discredited statistics he's been using for years.  It's a sad last wave before drowning, but the text and history of the 14th Amendment are squarely on our side.

U.S. v. Skoien To Be Reheard

News comes from Eugene Volokh that the 7th Circuit wants the Skoien case reheard en banc.  There are two possibilities here.

The first is that there was widespread disagreement with Judge Sykes' decision, and that the others on the panel hope to reverse it should we lose the McDonald case.  This would be similar to the Nordyke situation, in which the initial decision was similarly remanded pending the Supreme Court's decision.

The second possibility is that they want to try for a more lenient standard of scrutiny, which seems unlikely.  Heller took rational basis off the table, and Sykes' opinion was as close to "intermediate" scrutiny as could be workable.  All that remains is strict scrutiny for the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe, just maybe, there's actually support for that.  We'll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, the 4th Circuit has quietly agreed with the 7th, vacating William Chester's conviction on similar grounds in an unpublished opinion.  Though an "unpublished" opinion is not binding precedent, its very existence shows a certain amount of support for Skykes' interpretation.

The Morning Horses

Old memory with my father on Assateague Beach, pitch-shifted and sepia.

The Morning Horses (01:21)

Building Loop (00:09)

Mass Effect 2: Life in the Margins

Mass Effect was the story of a plucky commander uniting an oddball crew to save the galaxy.  Sure, there was a seedy underbelly, and folks tended to do some pretty shifty stuff at the fringes of civilization.  Part of the game involved confronting that from time to time, but we were led to expect a Gene Roddenberry happy ending for the most part.

That's certainly not the case in the sequel.  While the first game encouraged the player to navigate a fairly well-defined good/evil moral course, Mass Effect 2 forces us to wade through some fairly gray areas.

Spoilers ahead.

Second Guessing the Unguessable

A young man commited suicide on the range last Thursday. He fired 49 rounds, then turned the 50th on himself.

I reached him within seconds, but he showed no vital signs whatsoever.  He left behind two notes, one of which he appeared to have been holding while he shot himself, and another in his wallet. He waited until the area to his left was clear and aimed the weapon in such a way that nobody was downrange from the bullet.

We all expect suicidal people to give some sort of sign before they do something like this. As I've learned over the last few days, this isn't the case. I'd spoken to this person on two occasions at length, and he always appeared amiable and content. He seemed to enjoy shooting and was showing improvement over time.

Many suicidal people become somewhat serene once they've made the decision. I have no idea what led this man to take his own life, but he must have made up his mind well before we met.

Needless to say, the whole situation was quite disturbing to both witnesses and employees. My primary emotion at the time was annoyance. I was angry that he'd shown the temerity to dump this in my lap. Some very uncharitable thoughts ran through my head. Looking back, that was a fairly selfish reaction.

There's some consolation in the fact that he chose to do it on our premises rather than in front of his family. They've lost a son and they are grieving.  They don't need to see what I saw. I can deal with the terrible logistics.

I'd hoped this could be kept quiet, but someone at the Atlanta Journal/Constitution had access to a police scanner. The story was in the news before his body had even been removed from the premises, and well before the family could even be located or informed. There has been a great deal of speculation on the gun boards, most of it inaccurate, and much of it in reprehensible taste.

I am grateful for those who have expressed support and sympathy.  If I hear from the man's family, I will post the means to offer assistance to them.

After Rilke

After Rilke  (01:21)

Poking the Bear

In what was an otherwise predictable State of the Union address from President Obama, one episode sticks out.  The President chose to attack the Supreme Court directly, with seven Justices seated only feet away from him.

Regarding last week's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, he said,

With all due deference to separation of powers [spoken with unmistakable contempt], last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.  I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.  (...)  I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

The Justices sat serenely, with the exception of Samuel Alito, who shook his head and appeared to mutter "that's not true."

Apparently, this was a scripted moment that was planned in advance.  I'd think one of his gaggle of advisors would have warned him against such a thing during revisions.  This was an unnecessary distraction and a vulgar bit of pettiness in a speech that decried exactly such things.

Tesla's Wheelwork

A man went on vacation to a remote island. As soon as he got off the plane, he heard drums and thought, "wow, this is cool. Very native." However, the drums never stopped. He heard them when he went to the beach, when he ate dinner, even while he tried to sleep.

This went on for several nights.  In frustration, he went down to the office and asked the manager, "don't the drums ever stop?"

The manager replied, "No! Drums must never stop. Very bad if drums stop.''

"Why? What could be worse than this constant clatter?"

"When drums stop... bass solo.''

Then the drums stopped.

Tesla's Wheelwork (01:13)

Building Loop (00:22)

Clement Gets His Say

The NRA has won their motion to gain an allotment of the oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago.  As I'd previously mentioned, Gura gets 30 minutes to argue his case, a portion of which has already been given to the Texas Attorney General.

Frankly, I'm not the least happy having Paul Clement argue on our behalf.  This is the guy who argued during Heller that the Supreme Court should stick with a broad standard of scrutiny favoring government interests.  Why the NRA retained him, of all people, is beyond me.  Stephen Halbrook would have been a much better choice.

As Gura put it, "I hope that this time Paul understands that handgun bans are unconstitutional."

I've no idea as to the Court's motives in granting the motion.  It could be that a couple of Justices are reluctant to overrule Slaughterhouse, or it could just be that they want as many perspectives as possible.

Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2nd.

Sparrows 5

More fun with compressed minimalism.  Recorded with a Fender Jazz bass and Hazarai unit.

Sparrows 5  (1:20)

Base loop  (0:20)

Questioning Precedent

The Supreme Court decided this week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [pdf] that the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform act represents an unconstitutional restriction on the 1st Amendment rights of corporations.  The majority opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy, joined by Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas all delivered concurring opinions brimming with passion on the matter.  One pressing issue was the validity of the Court's prior decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.  The Court chose to overturn Austin, opening a lively internal debate on the scope and limits of stare decisis:

At the same time, stare decisis is neither an “inexorable command,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003), nor “a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940), especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978). If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants. Roberts' concurrence, p. 6

McDonald v. Chicago asks that very question in regards to Slaughterhouse, and it's encouraging to know that at least five Justices are willing to question blind adherence to precedent.  Things have obviously changed since the Rehnquist Court.

The Alias Line

The Alias Line (01:13)

A quick snippet on the tenor bass.  The title comes from Bowie J. Poag's series of images entitled Propaganda.

As with Poag's work, this is based on a small repeatable loop (00:15).

The Liminal Moment

Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the race for Ted Kennedy's vacant Massachusetts Senate seat.  This changes the balance of power in the Senate and erodes the 60-vote majority the Democrats have enjoyed until now.  This is nothing short of a referendum, not just on President Obama's performance, but on the the 4-year Democratic majority and their agenda.  The brakes are on for the health care bill, cap-and-trade, and many other pet causes.

Almost tellingly, stock markets took a jump this morning, with health care stocks rallying.  One wonders if today's election had something to do with that.

The closing gap also means that we'll likely see the conservative Democrats acting a little more conservatively as they feel safe splitting away from the hard-left leadership in Congress.

It also bides well for the 2010 midterms.  Remember that the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress was preceded by victories in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races.  The same thing happened this year, and by a much wider margin than 1994.

Now, if the Republican party can drum up some solidarity and decent leadership, we may be on the way to fixing things.

Schadenfreude

Well, it looks like I agree with Sarah Brady on one thing, at least.

The Brady Campaign gave President Obama an "F" rating on gun-control issues in a report issued this week [pdf].

In just one year, Barack Obama has signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than in President George W. Bush’s eight years in office. From the repeal of Reagan Era rules keeping loaded guns out of national parks to the repeal of post-9/11 policies to safeguard Amtrak from armed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s stance on guns has endangered our communities and threatened our national security.

That first sentence is particularly telling.  Obama knows the new truth when it comes to gun control:  paying lip service to it is a great rhetorical ploy, but attempting to follow through is political suicide.  Now he's in a rather unenviable position: he was expected to support gun control, but he lacks the wherewithal to do so.  As such, he's being branded a turncoat by the very people who put him into office.

Wait until the health-care bill tanks, and we'll really see sparks.  The last half of his term isn't going to be very chipper.

Division in the Ranks

Paul Clement, representing the NRA, has filed a motion [pdf] requesting a portion of the time reserved for petitioners' oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago.  Alan Gura will have thirty minutes to argue his case before the Court, some of which will be given over to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.  I doubt he can spare another ten.

The gist of the NRA motion is that they wish to have more time dedicated to arguments in favor of Due Process incorporation, believing that it "presents the most straightforward and direct route" to incorporating the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA had their chance to argue for selective incorporation.  They did so before the 7th Circuit last June, and it was a good case.  It was considered, alongside McDonald, to be heard by the Supreme Court.  The Court chose McDonald.

The Justices could have taken the easy way out with the NRA case, which asked only for selective incorporation.  In taking McDonald, the Court is telling us that they're interested in entering a larger and more important debate. Clement seems worried that, should the Court choose not to overturn Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank, the game is up.

This is simply not true.

When in Doubt, Blame the 2nd Amendment

Two other amicus briefs on behalf of the respondents in McDonald v. Chicago warrant mention.  The first [pdf] is filed on behalf of the Villages of Winnetka & Skokie, Illinois.  The other is written by Carolyn McCarthy.

You may remember Skokie from its brief cameo in the Blues Brothers.  In their brief, they maintain that incorporation of the 2nd Amendment would violate Home Rule powers.  They also worry that constituents will grow weary of seeing their government spend tax dollars defending unconstitutional regulations.

Another aspect of amici's experiences should concern the Court. When Evanston and Winnetka repealed their more restrictive laws in 2008, it was not because their citizens or legislators had been persuaded by policy arguments like the ones advanced by petitioners, respondent NRA, and their amici--but rather because they determined that the costs of defending the laws in federal court were too high to have local taxpayers bear. The prospect of resolution through litigation--and the threat of it--against local governments, for legislative actions taken in good faith to advance important public aims, is a further reasonfor rejecting the unprecedented constitutional interpretation petitioners seek the Court to impose. p. 3

"Resolution through litigation?" If that sounds familiar, it's because that is is exactly what Cook County attempted in the late 1990's, when they started suing firearms manufacturers.

McDonald v. Chicago: Amicus Briefs for Respondents

Final amicus curiae briefs in support of the respondents in McDonald v. Chicago were due today.  Among the parties filing are the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a Joyce Foundation beneficiary, and a coalition of "public health" organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Both briefs take the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated, as it would endanger gun control as a public health policy.

Equally ludicrous, but less insolent than the Chicago brief, is the one filed [pdf] by the United States Conference of Mayors.  These folks were an endorser of the controversial and impotent group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and they claim that "the Second Amendment protects a largely obsolete Eighteenth-Century right."  They point to New York City's "stop-and-frisk" program of detaining people suspected of carrying concealed weapons as one practice that may be endangered by incorporation.

Accordingly, if applicable to state and local governments and confined to framing-era understandings, the eighteenth-century conception of the right to bear arms would imperil the use of stop-and-frisk tactics against drug dealers and gang members, at least as long as they carry firearms openly and have not been previously convicted of a felony or otherwise fall within the scope of the regulatory authority acknowledged in Heller. p. 20

So, incorporation of the 2nd Amendment would threaten a practice that endangers the 4th Amendment?

Banner Ad Fail

From a lecture by John Pilger, given at an event called Socialism 2009 ("New Left for a New Era").  Mr. Pilger thinks our current President isn't liberal enough:

During his brief period in the Senate, Obama voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for the Patriot Act. He refused to support a bill for single-payer health care. He supported the death penalty. As a presidential candidate he received more corporate backing than John McCain. He promised to close Guantanamo as a priority, but instead he has excused torture, reinstated military commissions, kept the Bush gulag intact, and opposed habeas corpus.

Notice the banner advertisement, however.  Brownell's.

Somebody's got a sense of humor.

Some Days, My Brain Hurts

Let's get two things out of the way.

First, there is no ammunition ban, tax or other restriction being enacted this week.  I know my stuff.  Please stop yelling at me.

Second, if you wear sweatpants, please, for the love of God, consider underwear.