The Wandering Minstrel

After years of endorsing liberal-except-for-guns Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-BAG - NV), the National Rifle Association is pulling their almost-automatic endorsement. I read their announcement and I think the bottom line is that the NRAthinks that Reid is to blame for not stopping the confirmations of anti-gun Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, which he easily could have done as Majority Leader, and did not.

Image - Reid telling Americans what he thinks of us

Excerpt from the NRA announcement:

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

Emphasis added.

I think that the Republicans in Arizona like Governor Jan Brewer’s policies:

Source: azCentral.com

Terry Goddard, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate ran unopposed in the primary. Interestingly, he received only 242,708 votes as compared to Brewer’s total of 404,918. If that ratio holds for the general election in November, Brewer would be up 63% to Goddard’s 37%. I suppose that’s not as scientific as a pollster like Rasmussen, who had Brewer vs. Goddard at 56% to 37% on July 23rd.

Just after the conclusion of our latest excursion to Arizona, the belt clip on my Don Hume IWB Strike Holster failed. The Kydex thermoplastic belt clip fractured at the top of the loop where it fits over the top of my belt.

I like the holster, so I contacted the manufacturer to inquire about returning it for repair. They promptly got back to me in an email this morning with instructions for mailing it back. I dropped into our mail service store and shipped the holster back to them this morning. They should have the item by Thursday.

I decided that the tuckable feature for this holster will not generally be needed, so I ordered another IWB holster with a metal clip for “Little Boy,” my Glock 26. I also ordered the same model for “Fat Man,” my Glock 30.

Since the new holsters do not have the strap that holds the gun in, it should be easier to get the gun out of the holster. I visited a website a while back that recommended that IWB holsters should not have the strap. I’ll give it a try.

Very soon now, The Better Half and I will be in Arizona, a place where this concept is understood and accepted.

The California Senate Appropriations Committee passed the bill to outlaw open carry, Assembly Bill 1934, on to the Senate where it could be voted on this week. This bill would take away the only lawful means of citizens in those jurisdictions who deny permits to carry concealed.

It makes me sad to see my home state turning so far to the dark side of the Second Amendment. It appears the antis will never be satisfied until they take guns completely away from law abiding citizens in California. This attitude is one major driver on our exodus from the worst state in the west, California, to one of the best, Arizona.

I liked one paragraph in the NRA-ILA email to Californians:

AB1934 is a knee-jerk reaction by anti-gun legislators to punish citizens for engaging in the legal act of openly carrying an unloaded handgun. In reality, the open carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is forced by California’s unfair concealed carry law, which allows some citizens from some counties to receive a permit to carry, while their neighbors in the next county are denied that basic right for political, not public safety, reasons.

The morons in elected positions had the opportunity last year to change the language in the CCW law from “may issue” to “shall issue.” Naturally, it didn’t even clear committee. If you live in the Pyrite State, you can contact your State Senator.

Last September, when The Better Half and I attended the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, we did not expect to meet the iconic Alan Gura. Several of the attendees were gathering in the hospitality suite when in walked Gura.

After that, Mr. Gura participated in several of the events on the GBR agenda, most notably conducting an informal forum on the state of the Second Amendment. It was a genuine pleasure meeting him. He was kind enough to autograph The Better Half’s Heller Kitty T-shirt.

In the clickable image above, you will see Mike from Mr. Completely, yours truly, Alan Gura, Derek from The Packing Rat and DirtCrashr from Anthroblogology.

Winning attorney Alan Gura wrote an under 500 word essay at SCOTUSblog which summarizes the McDonald victory and what it means for the Second Amendment.

Image - Alan Gura at the 2009 Gun Blogger Rendezvous

Here is the beginning of Alan Gura’s article:

McDonald – A Victory for the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights – that much is the essential rule of McDonald v. City of Chicago. In the glass-two-drops-full department, opponents of the right to arms find refuge in statements recalling that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” We can all breathe easier knowing that airport metal detectors are going nowhere.

Of course, the First Amendment, a Bill of Rights provision with which the courts are vastly more experienced, does not imperil the overwhelming majority of speech regulations. For example, the police may ask those of us reveling in the McDonald decision to keep the party within our neighborhoods’ defined maximum noise levels. This much is just common-sense, confirmed by familiar time, place and manner standards. But just as the First Amendment will not tolerate the arbitrary licensing of political speech or punitive fees for expressive conduct, neither does the Second Amendment tolerate the gun prohibitionists’ agenda of frustrating the right to arms with excessive regulation. Politicians can justify any law. With respect to laws reaching some topics – including arms – the Constitution requires much more than paeans to the public good.

The Second Amendment is itself a reasonable, common-sense gun law – it provides powerful security for a fundamental individual right. Governments contemplating gun regulations out of legitimate concern for public safety may occasionally be reminded of their limits by courts, but good faith actors should find today’s decision no more troubling than any other precedent effectuating basic constitutional limitations. On the other hand, politicians approaching gun regulation as a means of continuing their disagreement with the Constitution’s enumerated policy choice on the subject will discover that doing so carries a price taxpayers do not wish to spend – and ultimately achieves nothing. [more]

In the aftermath of the McDonald victory, Pro Second Amendment organizations gear up for more battles to be waged against anti-gun laws. Wayne LaPierre’s remarks after the 5-4 decision favoring the McDonald case seem to indicate that the NRA will begin picking off some of the more onerous gun grabbers . . .

“This is a landmark decision,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment — as every citizen’s constitutional right — is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

Emphasis added.

Clickable image - The Better Half’s S&W .38 special “Rosie the Riveter” and Old Glory.