The powers that be in Chicago must have read that apocryphal story about the Texas Rangers and “One Riot, One Ranger”
Otherwise, why are they proposing a one handgun limit in response to losing the McDonald case?
It wouldn’t surprise me if Chicago tried to mandate what type of handgun you can own and in what caliber. It would probably be a Thompson-Center Contender in .22 Long Rifle given how they think and I use the word think loosely.
The snark continues in reactions to Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings. Stephen Stromberg, writing in the Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog, suggests that one could get better answers from an octopus named Paul that predicted Germany’s World Cup win over England than from Kagan herself.
On her judicial philosophy:
Would Kagan be a “progressive” justice? The nominee objects to the terminology. Paul can express no such qualms. After coming to terms with the metaphysical crisis that no doubt attends when your only means of communication consists of consuming morsels of seafood from one of two labeled containers, Paul would have no doubt selected the one that read “yes.”
On gun rights:
What is Kagan’s approach to gun control? The nominee wouldn’t touch the Heller ruling. Paul would have inked his way toward the “right to bear arms is a collective right, but if the court determines that it is an individual right it ought to be incorporated” container.
On learning anything out of the hearing:
Of course, the White House would never allow an octopus to serve as a surrogate for Kagan. Because if senators asked Paul whether the proceedings were a vapid farce, all eight tentacles would surely embrace the “yes” container.
Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), who is a U. S. Senator only by the grace of Obama’s landslide and the incredibly inept re-election campaign of Liddy Dole, has now had what the blog Red State is calling her Trent Lott Moment.
In a wonderfuly satirical piece, Ben Howe compares Hagan’s praise of the late Senator (and Klansman) Robert Byrd to the birthday comments made by Senator Trent Lott in honor of Strom Thurmond.
Make sure to read the whole thing!
On a side note, as a North Carolinian, I have found Hagan to be a not ready for prime time player. Until recently, she was a total failure at constituent communication. If I wrote her a letter, I had to wait six months or more for a response. And even then, it was a response to maybe one in ten letters.
Dale Peterson made quite a splash earlier this year with some of his ads for Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture featuring Dale riding off into the sunset atop his horse and carrying his Winchester 94.
Well, I think it is time for Dale to move over for Pamela Gorman of Arizona. She not only safely handles a firearm (unlike Dale) but does it in full auto.
BTW she is running in the Republican primary to replace Congressman John Shadegg who is retiring.
From the Washington Post
The Judiciary Committee grills Elena Kagan
The best – and most innovative – suggestion was made Patricia Wald, the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kagan will undoubtedly be a smart justice, though I am no clearer now than before as to what kind. How about, as an alternative to hearings, embedding a Rolling Stones reporter traveling with the candidate and her entourage for a few weeks before confirmation?
Alan Gura’s next case has a name. The official title is Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, Case No. 5:10-cv-265, and it was filed yesterday with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division.
The named plaintiffs are Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, and Forrest Minges, Jr as well as Grass Roots North Carolina and the Second Amendment Foundations. They are seeking to overturn the North Carolina General Statue that forbids the carrying, possession, sale or purchase of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency.
Specifically, they are asking the U. S. District Court for:
An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-288.7, 14-288.12(b)(4), 14-288.13(b), 14-288.14(a), and 14-288.15(d), forbidding the carrying, possession, sale or purchase of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency.
In February 2010, the City of King and Stokes County declared a state of emergency due to heavy snowfall and local power outages. The proclamation from the City of King forbade the sale or purchase of firearms and ammunition, as well as the possession of firearms and ammunition off an individual’s premises. If you had a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit, it didn’t matter as the state of emergency proclamation superceded it.
I have posted the entire complaint and other filings on Scribd. You can read the main filing here.
UPDATE: Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina and the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner, has more on the background of the case in his column.
I just found this on the Second Amendment Foundation’s website.
SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA’S ‘EMERGENCY POWERS’ GUN BANS
The Second Amendment Foundation along with Grass Roots North Carolina and three individuals are suing to overturn the law in North Carolina that allowed the Town of King to impose a ban on possession and sales of firearms due to … lots of snow.
Having read the law and seen when it was adopted, I’ve always felt it was a racist reaction to the civil unrest on college campuses during the late 1960s. The General Assembly was especially interested in tamping down any civil unrest at the historically black colleges and universities. This was very true in my hometown of Greensboro where the authorities kept a much closer eye on historically black NC A&T State University than on Women’s College (now UNC-Greensboro).
Two years and two days ago, the Supreme Court found that Dick Heller had the right to own a handgun to protect his family in his home in the Federal enclave of the District of Columbia. The Court held that the Second Amendment was an individual – not collective – right. Today, the Supreme Court held that Otis McDonald had that same individual right and that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. A plurality thought the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Due Process Clause while Justice Thomas thought the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated this right.
The full opinion of the Court, the concurring opinions, and the dissents cover 214 pages. You can order a paper copy for FREE directly from the Supreme Court. It is called a slip decision. Just call 202-479-3211 ext. 1 and ask for the slip opinion in Case 08-1521. This makes a nice memento!
Reaction of the participants
And now Hizzoner Mayor Daley.
Reaction from the Second Amendment Foundation.
And the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association were instrumental in bringing this case.
The NRA, which was given time to argue as a respondent on behalf of the plaintiff but were not a part of the McDonald case, issued this statement.
From the Gun Bloggers
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell Blog has spent most of the day reading and analyzing the decision.
Thomas’ Privileges or Immunities Opinion
Says Uncle has some interesting posts in his quick and to the point manner.
VPC on McDonald. And if you have the Violence Policy Center, then you have to have Brady.
Breda of The Breda Fallacy has this reminder, Congratulations, Chicago
And in a short post Michael Bane has this to say, SCOTUS Rules! Second is Fully Incorporated….
The great Dave Hardy in his Of Arms and the Law Blog notes the number of citations of many of the Second Amendment scholars in the decision.
The Law Bloggers were not to be outdone
The Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, has a number of posts.
Very interesting to see both the majority and Justice Thomas reference the racist roots of gun control so strongly. Also, while Alan Gura didn’t win on the privileges and immunities argument, he did better than he might have. And by arguing that way, he made due-process incorporation of the Second Amendment, which looked radical not too long ago, look moderate by comparison!
He offers his first impressions here. And he links to this interesting post on the power of paradox.
Reynolds and other bloggers are featured in a discussion on the case in the New York Times. And as a sidebar here, I’d love to have the gun collection pictured in the New York Times story!
The lovely Professor Ann Althouse weighs in here.
The Volokh Conspiracy has a number of important posts from their collection of law professors on the case.
Predicting the Impact of McDonald
What Now for Limits on Gun Possession by 18-to-20-Year-Olds?
McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws
Why Not the Privileges Or Immunities Clause?
And finally, the SCOTUS Blog has a number of posts on the case.
McDonald: big victory for liberty
McDonald impact: slew of new legal challenges
Still fighting the last war on the blog is Professor Jack Rakove of Stanford, A challenge of Heller’s historical interpretations
Thomas’ concurrence on the Privileges or Immunities Clause
Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again
Analysis: Gun rights go national McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, Opinion recap
And that sums it up for the evening. While there are a ton more posts opining on the case, I’m whupped!
Wait – just one more! The Law Blog in the Wall Street Journal calls Clarence Thomas’s concurrence potentially his finest hour.
The Court found for McDonald that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to the states. The majority opinion bases this incorporation on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion arguing for the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the reason for incorporating the Second Amendment.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held for Otis McDonald and his fellow plaintiffs. They reversed and remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As SayUncle noted, “Chicago, Welcome to America”.
I’ll have more later with a complete roundup of comments from around the blogosphere.
This makes Alan Gura two and oh in the Supreme Court.
by