Guns

What part of the 2nd Amendment does Mickey Mouse not understand? That's the question the NRA wants answered in light of the decision made by Walt Disney World to prohibit their employees from keeping fire arms in their cars while they work. This decision comes in spite of a new state law--The Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008--that went into affect in Florida on Tuesday allowing state residents to do just that.

Disney contends that its property is exempt from the law due to an exception for companies who have a federal permit for explosives. Disney has that permit because they put on fireworks displays frequently. Republican state Senator Durell Peaden thinks Disney is hiding behind a technicality. "I intended it to exempt places like defense plants, Air Force bases, things like that," he said, adding, "but not Disney. Not at all."

When the news of Disney's defiance hit NRA headquarters, their PR department came out with guns blazing. They quickly issued a memo to members titled, "Disney Thumbing Nose at the New Florida Gun Law." The memo accused Disney of being a "prime offender when it comes to firing employees for exercising Second Amendment rights." Disney also supports a court challenge to the new law.

In case you were wondering, SeaWorld supports the law.

The NRA will need all their ammo, because in addition to their battle with Disney the group also has plans for a pitched legal battle against the city of San Francisco and also plans to spend $40 million on the Presidential election.

Gun-rights advocates announced plans yesterday to challenge restrictive gun laws in two of the nation's biggest cities in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court ruled that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership or possession within the District violated the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms. The Illinois State Rifle Association and the National Rifle Association moved almost immediately to challenge gun laws in Chicago and San Francisco, respectively. Chicago's gun ban is similar to the one overturned in Washington, banning possession and sale of handguns within city limits. San Francisco bans possession of handguns on county property including parks, schools, and community centers.

The lawsuits are likely only the first in a new spate of gun-rights legal challenges to gun laws all across the country. The Supreme Court's decision was the first time in its history that the Court had ruled on the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right to own a gun. The Illinois lawsuit borrows from the wording of the Court's decision indicating that the right is individual.

"By banning handguns, Defendants [the City of Chicago] currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprives individuals ... of their right to keep and bear arms."

The issue of gun rights has injected itself into the presidential campaign, with both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama embracing the Court's decision. But the lawsuit in Chicago could be a sticky issue for Sen. Obama as the campaign goes on. Chicago is Obama's hometown, and while a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama cast several votes against the interests of gun owners, including voting twice to bar homeowners who owned a gun for self defense from being charged with violating local gun laws if they used the weapon for that purpose. As the Chicago lawsuit progresses, Obama may be forced to take a position on his city's gun laws that could put him at odds with his new found support for an individual right to bear arms.

Unlike Justin, I think the Heller case overturning the DC gun ban has far larger impact than just Washington DC itself. Scalia and the other four conservative justices left that open for question for now, based on my limited understanding of the opinion. We'll know soon enough, when the inevitable lawsuit against the Chicago ban winds its way up.

Of interest to me was the potential political impact. Obama was clearly scared as hell that the liberal wing of the court was about to eviscerate his chances of winning in November. And yes, a decision nullifying the 2nd amendment would have done so. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton and the many, many outgoing members of the 103rd congress why they think they lost big in 1994. So yes, this was a big deal, as illustrated by Obama's lack of straight talk on the matter:

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

I'm very interested in how Obama will play this now that he has dodged this bullet, no thanks to the four liberal justices who dissented. My guess is that he will say as little as possible and again call for common sense gun laws and try to appear as not a threat to the rights of gun owners. Also of interest is that among the grass roots left there is a new appreciation for the 2nd amendment, but worrying about Dick Cheney's shadow government perhaps gave them an appreciation of what it was all about in the first place. John McCain of course, wasted no time.

"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."

... shall not be infringed!

Well, maybe.

The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional the D.C. law banning handguns. "The District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Scalia's majority opinion in the 5-4 decision divorces the right to bear arms from the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment, thereby tying an "individual right to possess and carry weapons" to an inherent right of self-defense. This profound interpretation provides the Court's first unequivocal decree on the 2nd Amendment.

However, the court cautions several limitations. First, just as it does not read the 1st Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose" (i.e., yelling fire in a theater), it likewise does not read the 2nd Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation." Restrictions will still be permitted with regard to felons, the mentally ill, school zones, etc.

Far more importantly, however, is the recognition that D.C. is a federal entity - not a state. And the Court seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment has not hereby been incorporated such that it applies to the states. Hence, the case may not provide binding precedent nearly anywhere else in the nation. We will have the right under the 2nd Amendment, but the Court may not enforce the amendment beyond the federal government. (This seeming injustice is actually constitutionally correct, as the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, but only to the federal government. However, as the Supreme Court has enforced other provisions of the bill of Rights on the states, it would seem arbitrary and unjust to deny this right - unless all other rights were similarly rescinded ... an unlikely event.)

Expect an explosion of litigation on this issue in the near future - and watch to see if the Court is eager to take up those cases and expound upon today's ruling.

First a broken promise on public financing of his own mega-campaign, then Barack Obama takes the same position on FISA (spy courts) as President George W. Bush, now Obama wants to have a more identical stance on Americans 2nd Amendment Rights as Bush.

But it hasn't always been that way.

In 2007, his campaign told the Chicago Tribune he believed the Washington, D.C. gun ban was constitutional. Now they say that was an "inartful" explanation. Now, the public is supposed to be believe the message of the day from the Obama campaign, which is that of course he knew the gun ban was unconstitutional.

Obama seems to be working hard to make John Kerry look like a straight-shooter.

Now plenty of people oppose gun rights (I am not one of them), and if Obama really is one of these, why play politics with such a fundamental issue?

Oh wait, playing politics with issues is what Barack Obama does.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) thinks the U.S. embassy in Albania may have helped an indicted weapons dealer hide the Chinese origin of ammunition sent to Afghanistan, and that the embassy tried to keep information about the ammunition from Congress.

Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, today sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying:

"The Oversight Committee has received information that the U.S. ambassador to Albania held a late-night meeting with the Albanian Defense Minister at which the ambassador approved removing evidence of the illegal Chinese origins of ammunition being shipped from Albania to Afghanistan by a U.S. contractor."

Here's what the chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation at the embassy, Major Larry Harrison, told the committee on June 9:

-Ambassador John Withers and top aides (as well as Harrison) met with the Albanian defense minister on Nov. 19, 2007, to discuss how to respond to a NY Times request to visit a site in Albania where U.S. arms contractor AEY was removing Chinese ammunition from its original packaging before sending it to Afghanistan

-the defense minister then ordered his top general to remove all evidence of Chinese packaging before the next day's inspection, to "alleviate the suspicion of wrongdoing."

-he felt "very uncomfortable" with the decision to remove the Chinese Markings, since AEY was under investigation for illegal arms trafficking involving Chinese ammunition.

Oops. I think we now know why they don't let Chelsea talk to reporters. Much. This is what happens when they do:

Chelsea Clinton told supporters in Billings that the country needs to do more with gun control laws, during the final visit on her two day tour campaigning on her mother's behalf in the Magic City.During a question and answer session before seniors and other supporters at the Yellowstone County Council on Aging Office Friday morning, Chelsea said, "We also need to do more with gun control. And my mom supports- naturally what she supported in New York. Which is: we have different gun control laws in New York City than we do in upstate New York."

Video here.

The RNC has a new web ad attacking Senator Obama's Second Amendment credentials. It debuted just in time for the NRA's annual meeting (featuring the Nuge!).

The old adage about glass houses may need to be supplemented with the more specific, "People who want to attack their opponents on gun control should do so with guns that really exist." Politico is reporting that sharp-eyed readers noticed something fanciful in the Clinton campaign's direct-mail piece:

"The gun in the photo does not exist," said Val Forgett III, president of Navy Arms in Martinsburg, W.Va. Forgett's company was Mauser's agent in the United States when the gun was released, and it sold Mauser guns here again in the 1990s. "The bolt is facing to the left side of the receiver, making it a left-handed bolt action rifle, indicating whoever constructed and approved the mailer did not recognize the image has been reversed."

There is no truth to reports that the next Clinton mailer will attack Obama's support for an outright ban on "hand phasers," and a 48 hour waiting period on the purchase of a "blaster."

This is hardly a fatal gaffe, but one which points up the hypocrisy of the campaign's attack, when Senator Clinton herself was likened to Rosie O'Donnell on gun control by the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The gun dealer in Politico's story throws in a factoid that feeds into another narrative that the Clinton campaign has tried to use against Senator Obama, the "elitism" argument.

"It's a $2,200 German import - it's hardly typical of what the average workingman in Indiana uses," he said.

In anticipation of the Supreme Court's looming decision on the constitutionality of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, Hillary Clinton has brought the issue of gun rights to the forefront with a severe mailing ad attacking Baradsack Obama.

Hillary skillfully attacks Obama's character while reminding readers of his disastrous remarks about "bitter" Pennsylvanians "clinging" to their guns. As well, Clinton may be attempting to posture in preparation for the Supreme Court's ruling. Though she has favored gun control throughout her career, Clinton is now attempting to move to the right of Obama on the issue.

Gun rights will likely flare as a political issue when the Court rules - regardless of the Court's decision. Both sides on the issue are loud and passionate. Clinton is attempting to capture the middle ground, assumably so as to cast both of her opponents as extremists. Yet, as the issue is only a priority to those who have extreme positions, Clinton may prove so cunning that she outsmarts herself.