Napolitano: Court will invalidate New York gun law

Judge Napolitano on the ramifications of McDonald v. Chicago and 2A incorporation on New York’s gun laws:

“… In my opinion, look to the Supreme Court to invalidate them …”

  • Share on Tumblr

Massa bows out

Congressman Eric Massa announced he’s not going to seek re-election this fall.  It’s a little unclear as to why.  Either he has health problems or he’s a pervert.  In any event, Monroe Co. Exec. Maggie Brooks has expressed interest in running.  From a 2A standpoint, she’s has a much better record on the issue than Massa and would be an improvement.

  • Share on Tumblr

Toast

Gov. Paterson is toast.  It’s a matter of time before he resigns.  Short of a major political shakeup, Andrew Cuomo will be our next elected Governor.

  • Share on Tumblr

Bloomberg in denial

Mayor Mike is in denial:

“… “We don’t expect it to impact on New York laws,” a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago …”

He’s kidding himself.

  • Share on Tumblr

Paul Helmke’s press conference

  • Share on Tumblr

Helmke & Henigan press conference

Pictures from Paul Helmke’s and Dennis Henigan’s press conference outside on the steps of the Supreme Court building.  It’s kinda hard to see them through the crowds of supporters and media.

  • Share on Tumblr

We’re going to win

SCOTUS takes up oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case today.  I’m confident we’re going to win, it’s just a matter of by how much.  The L.A. Times writes, “Justices signal they’re ready to make gun ownership a national right“:

“Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments Tuesday that they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations … All signs Tuesday were that five justices saw the right to “bear arms” as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to possess a gun as being of “fundamental character,” like the right to freedom of speech … Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an “extremely important” right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in their decision two years ago. The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he had been a steady advocate of the 2nd Amendment … “

I would like to think it would be better than 5-4, but if that’s all we get, a win is still a win.

It’s also important to remember that incorporation won’t settled the gun control argument.  It’s more like the beginning of a new phase that will play out over the next 5, 10, 20+ years.

“… Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. “We haven’t said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment,” Roberts said at one point …”

Keep this in mind when the Sullivan Act doesn’t magically disappear immediately after McDonald is settled.

“… He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a “concealed” weapon …”

I have no problem with open carry.

Of course, the antis will never, ever go away either.

“… A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations … Cities should be permitted to set “reasonable regulations of firearms,” he added, noting that Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes …”

Reasonable regulations = gun bans.  The court already said that’s a no-no.

“… he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues. At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not “a right to parade around the street with a gun,” Stevens said. But that idea got no traction with the other justices …”

This is a good sign from the court.  Is the right of free speech only allowed in the home?  Is freedom of religion only allowed in church?

It’s going to be fun to watch the reaction from our politicians when New York State is forced to recognize there is an individual right to own guns.

  • Share on Tumblr

The most dangerous of our constitutional rights

  • Share on Tumblr

Delaware Co. opposes antigun bills

The Delaware Co. legislature passed a resolution in opposition to the annual NYAGV package the Assembly brings up every year.  From the Daily Star:

“… Delhi Supervisor Peter Bracci presented a resolution opposing bills passed in the state Assembly that he said would have a detrimental effect on hunters, sportsmen and legal gun owners and would curtail rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The list included 11 bills that include provisions requiring the renewal of firearms licenses after five years, stringent restrictions on firearms dealers, new training requirements, banning the sale of weapons that are .50-caliber or larger, and others … “I was in law enforcement for 38 years and none of these laws would do anything to reduce crime,” Bracci said … Middletown Supervisor Len Utter said, “This is probably the most important resolution we will pass in a long time. There is a movement in our country to dismantle the Constitution and this is just one step.” …”

  • Share on Tumblr

Winning by losing

According to AP writer Mark Sherman, the antis can win by losing.  From his op-ed, “Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control“:

“Gun control advocates are hoping they can win by losing when the Supreme Court rules on state and local regulation of firearms.  The justices will be deciding whether the right to possess guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment – like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights – applies to states as well as the federal government. It’s widely believed they will say it does …”

Sherman can’t be serious.  The core issue for all antigun groups is their desire for nothing short of a total prohibition on private firearms ownership.

“… But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments “from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence.” …”

And by “reasonable laws” they mean a total ban.  That is why the Brady’s defended Washington D.C.’s total ban on handgun ownership and functional long gun ownership.  Incorporation takes prohibition off the table.  Yet, somehow the antis will come out ahead?

Recognizing their primary reason for being is going away, what have the the Brady’s been all hot and heavy about for the past month?  So-called “assault weapons”?  Microstamping?  Nope.  They’re attacking Starbucks for allowing open carry in their shops.  It’s not going well for them either.  Is this the behavior of winners?  I think not.

  • Share on Tumblr