[As the Republican nominee begins his opening statement, President Obama reflects.*]

I

Ooooh . . . he speaks, the right’s Orion!

Expel your foul dis-charges—phew!

Could glares steal breath, Paulie Ryan,

‘Bout now you’d be turning blue!

Huh?  Big spending cuts are needed?

Ah, Fed tax rates mustn’t rise.

And these . . . “facts” I’ve not conceded?

Why?  They’re falsehoods, damn your eyes!

II

In the past we’ve had discussions–

“Paul–thanks for coming!”—I must bear

Rants on Market repercussions,

Treas’ry futures, budget snares.

Our job outlook’s pathetic; rarely

Has it been this bad, I think.

Want a deal to face this squarely?

Want emetics in your drink? (more…)

California has among the strictest gun laws in the country, and couple of local politicians are seizing the opportunity created by the Arizona shooting to make them even stricter.

While most states operate under a “shall-issue” concealed carry weapons (CCW) permitting regime, meaning that anyone who passes a basic background check can get a CCW, California uses the “may-issue” rule, which means the decision is left to the sole discretion of the county sheriff. The result? Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is almost 20 times lower than in the average shall-issue state.

This restrictive climate has led to the emergence of a burgeoning “Open Carry” movement, wherein citizens carry holstered, unloaded weapons in plain sight. California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino calls the open carry exemption in the law a “loophole,” which he intends to close with Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144).

Portantino’s fellow Assembly member Lori Saldana tried to ban open carry in 2010, but the bill failed in the assembly. But this time, AB 144 has gained helpful momentum from an unexpected source: Jared Loughner.

(more…)

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has filed a simple amendment to the Patriot Act protecting the rights of Americans to lawfully carry a firearm.  His Amendment would stop federal agencies from collecting gun records under the Patriot Act.  The amendment preserves two provisions of current law that protects gun owner privacy from a Patriot Act exemption.

The Paul Amendment (SA 328) states in part “no provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize access to firearms records in the possession of licensed under Chapter 44 of title 18 of the US Code.”  The purpose of the Amendment is to “clarify that the authority to obtain information under the US PATRIOT Act does not include the authority to obtain certain firearms records.”  Seems like a non-controversial clarification of the powers of the federal government with regard to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Leadership in both parties disagree and have been doing everything to block consideration of the Paul Amendment. Neil McCabe at Guns and Patriots reported yesterday on Facebook that “finessing arcane procedural tactics, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the amendment by withdrawing his own bill for Patriot Act extension for consideration and then attached it to an unrelated bill.”  McCabe further reported that Reid was overheard on the Senate floor expressing an interest in avoiding this vote.  That was yesterday, now Republicans in the Senate Leadership are actively opposing the Paul Amendment to the Patriot Act.

In an Email obtained by Big Government from a Senate Republican Leadership staffer for Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to Republican staff below titled “OPPOSE the Paul Firearm Amendment” argues for Republicans to block the Paul 2nd Amendment protection legislation:

(more…)

Yes, this is in regards to the Arizona shootings but, to be fair to Michael Moore, he’s basically been saying this same thing his entire career. You can check out his full line of reasoning, if you can call it that, here. But basically he starts off his brilliant diatribe by claiming that most guns in the US are in areas with very little gun violence. This is, of course, true. However, Moore takes no time to stop and consider exactly why this is true.

You see, to Moore this is true simply because these areas are suburban or rural or something. I guess. He can’t fathom a connection between gun ownership by law abiding Americans and reduced crime rates. It’s astounding.

Anyway, pointing to the low crime rates Moore then asks why people in areas like Tucson want guns? After all these places with all these guns are super safe so why would you want to own such an incredibly dangerous thing like a gun in any of these completely safe areas with lots of guns since, you know, guns are crazy dangerous and stuff.

(more…)

The Left will have you believe that people who own guns are a bunch of fun-loving, action-hero-wannabes, who are excited by shiny things and loud noises and like to run around blowing things up by remote control. And I say, that’s not a bug — that’s a feature!

But there is much, much more to it than that.

(more…)

This week’s historic Supreme Court case on gun rights has pivotal implications for Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. From now on, the biggest battles over the Second Amendment will be won or lost in the Supreme Court.

In the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held 5−4 that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to own a gun. But because the Bill of Rights only applies directly to federal laws (such as those in D.C.), Heller only made the Second Amendment a right against the federal government.

On June 28 of this year in McDonald v. Chicago, a new 5−4 Supreme Court decision held that the individual right to own a gun from Heller is a fundamental right, and as such extends through the Fourteenth Amendment as a right against state and local governments as well.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in full. (Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a separate dissent.) That dissent contains a telling revelation about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court.

When Sotomayor was nominated for the High Court last year, she was asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D−VT) whether after Heller it is now a matter of settled law that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to own a gun. Her answer was clear and direct: “Yes, sir.”

(more…)

“We had to put the Second Amendment over the First Amendment.” (7:21)

Yes, it’s common sense to credit the NRA for its involvement with the McDonald vs Chicago case and its fight for the Second Amendment, which, I think, would have been infringed upon even greater longer ago without the NRA.

However.

I don’t like what I’m seeing with the NRA on this – and their wish to protect the Second Amendment by way of seeking exemption under DISCLOSE is nullified if they traded exemption for silence on the hearing of an anti-gun Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as part of of the deal.

You can’t be non-partisan because the Second Amendment, in current society, is not a bipartisan issue.

By silencing yourself, ironically, on an issue for exemption so that you don’t have to be silenced later on is playing with the First Amendment whether you realize it or not.

(more…)

At long last the 2nd Amendment has been considered a personal right per the Supreme Court of the United States. In McDonald v the City of Chicago the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that Chicago’s gun banning laws are not in keeping with the right to self-defense as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. After 200 some years we are finally accorded our rights officially. Further, the Court found that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect the very people that Mayor Richard Daley and his comrades are trying to forcibly disarm: black Americans.

The decision threw out the Seventh Circuit ruling upholding Chicago’s gun ban and ordered the Seventh to revisit its decision. This new ruling does not specifically strike down Chicago’s gun ban but the opinion leaves little room for the Seventh to up hold Mayor Richard Daley’s gun banning efforts.

One of the main questions before the Court was whether or not the 14th Amendment served to shore up the rights in the 2nd. The Court found that it did, indeed. In fact, it is interesting to note that the ancestors of the very people that the 14th Amendment was meant to specifically protect — newly freed slaves, called freemen — are today those that Mayor Richard Daley and others like him want to disarm. Daley and his ilk want to disempower blacks and other minorities and tie them plantation-like to their government authority.

In the majority opinion in the McDonald decision specifically notes the history of the 14th Amendment and its preceding basis for being the protector of the freemen.

After the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freed- man, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” (pg 23)

There was but one reason why freedmen were prohibited from having firearms and that was so that they would be unable to defend themselves against terrorists like the Klan or be able to enjoy the fruits of citizenship. Scalia notes that the Freedman’s Bureau began to add rules to its repertoire to specifically affirm the newly freed black’s right to self defense (pg 27).

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

(more…)

From Reuters:

Republicans have questioned whether Kagan, a former Harvard law school dean who has served in the past two Democratic administrations, is driven more by politics than law.

Democratic backers call the 50-year-old nominee, who last week received the American Bar Association’s top rating, a perfect fit for the highest U.S. court.

Obama has faced a Republican wall of opposition this election year on issues like healthcare, climate change and immigration.

But barring unforeseen bombshells at the hearing, at least a few members of the opposition party are expected to join Democrats and confirm Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s leading liberal.

(more…)

A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans’ Second Amendment right to own a gun became public Thursday, ensuring gun rights will be a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. It also confirms that President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will “reinterpret” the Second Amendment until that amendment means nothing at all.

This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago’s law banning guns—even in your own home—is constitutional.

When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, then-Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is tremendously important).

If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn’t file a brief because it’s a state issue as to whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last time the Supreme Court “incorporated” a right from the Bill of Rights to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) was given time in oral argument time to express the government’s views in front of the Court.

(more…)

Elena Kagan may be hostile to the view that the 2^ndAmendment to the Constitution protects American’s individual right to keep and bear arms.  Bloomberg reports today, “Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument.”  With the evidence presented by the Los Angeles Times that Kagan was very active in the gun control agenda during her time as counsel for the President Bill Clinton Administration, a thorough examination of Kagan’s views on the 2^nd Amendment is merited.

Bloomberg Reports that “Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was ‘not sympathetic’ toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.”  In the wake of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision holding that the 2^nd Amendment is an individual right, it is incumbent upon Senators to explore the views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan on American’s civil right to own a firearm. More from Bloomberg:

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal. The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

(more…)

The Constitution and the Second Amendment are in the spotlight this week on two fronts.  First is that oral arguments are being held in the McDonald v Chicago case to possibly apply the holding in Heller to the states.

In addition, Senators are beginning their evaluation of the judicial nomination of Berkeley professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a vote that will tell a great deal about Senator Reid’s adherence to Constitutional principles such as those specified in the Second Amendment.

Senator Reid has a terrible record on judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In DC v Heller, there were four dissenters from the holding that the right to bear arms is an individual right.  Harry Reid had a chance to vote on three and he voted for each one – Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg.  Harry Reid has a chance to vote on four of the majority justices, and he voted against three of them – Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  If Harry Reid had been successful in defeating any of these three, Heller would have been in jeopardy.  That’s six out of seven bad votes on the Supreme Court.

Four of those bad votes were cast in his very first term, when my primary opponent Sue Lowden was his loyal contributor.

There will be hearings on professor Liu, but I am specifically interested in a particular book he co-authored on jurisprudence entitled “Keeping Faith with the Constitution.”

(more…)

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm its citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns, or whether gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution.  In doing so, it will reconsider whether courts should play a more robust role in the protection of the basic liberties of the people.

Such a statement may seem counterintuitive.  Of course courts protect rights; it’s their job to interpret the Constitution to do just that.

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  It seems crazy that we would let legislatures determine when laws they themselves create violate the Constitution.  But that is exactly what has happened.  We’ve let the fox guard the henhouse.

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  And judicial abdication is every bit as dangerous as judicial activism, and arguably even more so because it allows politicians to disregard whatever constitutional limits they find inconvenient, which leads to unchecked expansion of government power.

(more…)

Is President Obama a surprising gun rights supporter? He might be if the Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman is correct. And Chapman isn’t the only one. It seems to be shaping up to be the lefty complaint du jour this week. Reality, however, might say something different.

Chapman makes a classic mistake that many people make when discussing matters political. He mistakes Washington’s inaction on an issue as some sort of statement on the ideology on that issue. While there are times when this is true, inaction is not necessarily a statement of support or opposition to an issue, but often just a matter of merely not having gotten to it yet, or even not being able to.

In this case Chapman is talking about guns. Is Obama for them, against them, indifferent to them? Chapman has a sneaking suspicion that President Obama is for our rights and only supports modest gun control measures. This is because the president hasn’t launched into all sorts of left-wing attempts to curtail our Second Amendment rights in his one year in office. But I think Chapman is reading too much into Obama’s inaction.

While it is true that Obama has signed a few bills with measures that have given gun rights advocates reason to celebrate and while it is true that Obama has not come to the aid of virulent anti-Second Amendment folks like the Brady Center, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama is the NRA’s next poster child!

(more…)

Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller definitively settled the fact that the Second Amendment secures an individual right—not a collective one—to keep and bear arms. Yet that ruling applied only to the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). Does the Second Amendment apply against state and local governments as well?

Through a series of legal decisions handed down over the past century, the Supreme Court has gradually held that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Second Amendment, however, has been glaringly absent from this process, leaving state and local governments free to systematically violate gun rights.

Until now.

(more…)