The Wandering Minstrel

Hillary must be up in the polls again . . .

Close-up of the cylinder of a Smith and Wesson 686 .357 magnum revolver.

Thanks to Damsel for providing this image.

Redstate has a post today about the intervention of the Solicitor General of the United States in the Heller vs. D.C. case. In the post is a link to savethesecond.org where Congressman Eric Cantor (R -VA) is organizing a petition to let the government know that you value your second amendment rights.

Click here to sign the petition.

Here’s an excerpt from the petition site:

Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General filed formal briefs asking the Supreme Court not to affirm the lower court’s decision. This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights.

Take action today - sign this petition to let the government know that you value your second amendment rights. Together, we can ensure that your rights are protected. For the first time in years we have the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clearly say that the second amendment applies to all Americans and that no government can ban all handguns.

Let your voice be heard - sign the petition today.

This came in an email today from the NRA. I posted here in case you haven’t seen it.

Statement of the National Rifle Association
By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox
On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, The New York Mayor who is bound and determined to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, was being deposed in a defamation lawsuit about his presidential aspirations. The suit was initiated by a gun shop owner whom Bloomberg allegedly defamed.

Image - recent cover from NRA’s Freedom First magazine depicting Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing tentacles.

From the New York Sun:

Bloomberg Is Deposed in Guns Case

Mayor Bloomberg has been asked many times whether he harbors presidential aspirations. Yesterday may be the first time he was asked the question under oath.

Mr. Bloomberg spent the day sitting for a deposition in a civil lawsuit, the first time he has done so as mayor. The defamation case against the mayor was brought by a South Carolina gun salesman who claims the mayor spoke ill of him in the press. The deposition lasted the entire workday, and the topics ranged from Mr. Bloomberg’s views on the Second Amendment to whether he intended to run for president.

Regarding a possible presidential run, a lawyer for Mr. Bloomberg told him not to state his current plans, but to speak only of his mindset in spring 2006, according to a video of the deposition viewed by The New York Sun.

“I was not planning to run for president then,” Mr. Bloomberg said. The 2006 date was used because it was around the time the South Carolina gun dealer, Larry Mickalis, first learned of the statements the mayor made about him, and it is the time frame at issue in the suit.

“I was never at that period of time — in the period I was instructed to be able to answer — considering running for president,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

The scary part of the article is when these exchanges took place between Bloomberg and the plaintiff’s attorney.

At another point, Mr. Pierce asked Mr. Bloomberg about his understanding of the Second Amendment. Over the objection of a lawyer, the mayor responded: “I believe the Second Amendment of the bill of rights gives you the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe courts have held over the years that government does have the authority to limit these rights in situations when the public is in danger. For example, carrying concealed weapons in big cities.”

Exactly where CCW is needed the most!

At one point, Mayor Bloomberg quipped to the room full of lawyers: “I never wanted to be a lawyer.”

Mr. Pierce replied: “That might get you elected president.”

Mr. Bloomberg smiled and pursed his lips.

As much as I hate litigation and frivolous lawsuits, I hope this creep Bloomberg gets shit-hammered by this suit.

. . . for doing the right thing again.

From the NSSF:

D.C. Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

NEWTOWN, Conn. — Earlier today, a unanimous (3-0) District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the May 2006 decision of District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Brook Hedges dismissing a lawsuit, filed in January 2000, by the District of Columbia and the families of nine victims of criminal shootings that occurred in the district. Writing for the district’s high court, Associate Judge Michael William Farrell ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by President Bush in October 2005, required dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against 25 firearm manufacturers. The district and the plaintiffs had sued the manufacturers under the district’s so-called Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act which imposes automatic and absolute liability on manufacturers for injuries resulting from criminal shootings in the district, even if, as Judge Farrell observed, the criminal shootings happened “years after the manufacture or sale and despite the utmost care taken in the manufacture or sale” of the firearm.

In upholding the dismissal Judge Farrell noted that Congress’ purpose in passing the PLCAA was to “prohibit [lawsuits] against manufacturers … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms products …” The court wrote that allowing the district’s lawsuit to proceed “would, in our view, frustrate Congress’ clear intention.”

“Today’s ruling is very gratifying to members of the firearms industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, chief spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association. “The District of Columbia lawsuit was like blaming car makers for drunk-driving accidents.”
Continue Reading »

I’m kinda busy this evening so while I’m listening to Republicans bickering, look at this.

Judge Roy Moore is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The judge was actually writing about the gun case in D.C. but made an interesting point about the benefit of an armed militia to the Swiss.

This is an excerpt from his article in World Net Daily:

Maintaining our right to keep and bear arms

World history since the American Revolution has only demonstrated that people who treasure freedom also treasure their firearms to ensure that they don’t lose their freedom. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, they tightened gun control laws to help the party maintain control. [ed. - Does this remind you of any political parties in the U.S.?] As one country after another fell to Adolph Hitler’s war machine, he greedily eyed Switzerland for invasion. But he never dared invade.

What set Switzerland apart from the rest of Europe was that, for centuries, Swiss men had been required by law to own and train with firearms. The entire populace was, in essence, a well-regulated militia. A popular Swiss saying warns, “The Swiss do not have an army; they are the army.” While the mountainous terrain of Switzerland was a daunting deterrent to a foreign invasion, the fact that all the Swiss people were well-armed and well-trained contributed to the decision by Hitler to leave the country alone. It is no accident that Switzerland was and has remained a free and “neutral” country.

Whether the danger to our own country comes from within or without our borders, we should never forget that guns in the hands of our citizens are essential to defend freedom. Hopefully, in the Heller case, our current Supreme Court will understand this principle as well as its past members did: Joseph Story, a Supreme Court justice for more than 30 years, wrote in 1833 that the right to bear arms was “the palladium [safeguard] of the liberties of a republic.”