NOVATOWNHALL

Ah, a quiet Friday. NVTH bloggers all preoccupied with their so called lives, so here we go with the topic that always fascinates, and for good reason.

(Credit to the original).

I must disagree with Justice Scalia’s reading of the Miller decision:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).  Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Essentially, fully automatic weapons such as M-14s, M-16s, and M-60s, are not common, and thus can be banned from use by the citizens, even though they are used by the military.  By that logic, semiautomatic weapons could have been banned during WWII, when the only extant example was the M-1.  Being banned, they would not now be common, and therefore could be banned.  Similarly, in the late 1800’s, there were very few bolt-action rifles.  So they could have been banned as well.  The ban would be constitutional, because today they would be uncommon.  You could go back to the invention of the rifled musket and the revolver.  They were quite uncommon when they were invented.  Had they been banned, they would still be uncommon, and, according to Scalia’s logic, could be banned.

Ridiculous.

I can certainly do no better than Scalia himself.  Read the opinion.  It’s beautiful.  Scalia is hilarious.

Here’s just a couple of examples:

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

And later…

The amici also dismiss examples such as “bear arms… for the purpose of killing game” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

Just in.  On a 5 to 4 vote, the Supremes have upheld that a D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional and been struck down.  As soon as there are more details, I will update this post.  Know this.  It was ruled on the narrowest or margins and we probably know who the dissenting justices were.  This is why it is imperative to vote this election.  The SCOTUS is full of old peoples and the next president will be picking a few when he isn’t picking his nose!

Check out the Outrage of the Week.

What is frightening is that people this stupid are teaching our children.

A very interesting tale from NVTH commenter “The Last Reagan” from the RPV Convention:

I am glad to hear that members of the Republican Party were exercising their Second Amendment Right at the State Convention.

According to Virginia law, unless signs are posted prohibiting firearms, one is free to carry open or concealed (with permit) wherever and whenever they so choose. It is incumbent upon the facility to openly post their prohibition.

However, I am aware that several law-abiding citizens were harassed by convention staff when they inquired about the rules and regulations of the facility, attempting to go above and beyond the requirements of the law. - Their mistake.

From what I understand, they were stopped more than once after their inquiry by both convention staff and later even law enforcement. Their whereabouts, location of firearms, and IDs were forcefully demanded. They were further targeted and harassed throughout the Convention by the Assistant General Manager of the Conference Center, Patrick Skaggs. They will be filing multiple complaints.

After a detailed inquiry by myself, according to Mr. Skaggs, the Assistant General Manager, “This is the way that the Republican Party wanted it. They wished for the incident to be handled as it was.”

I think that this is entirely contrary to our Republican values of supporting Second Amendment Rights and am furious to hear that the Republican Party had involvement in this Civil Rights violation incident.

I have already addressed the issue with Jeff Frederick, Morton Blackwell, the VCDL, the NRA, and every other Second Amendment supporter that I know, all of which I am hopeful will be investigating the matter. I hope that the Republican Party will file a complaint with the facility and remove whomever in the Party may have been involved.

Likewise, as a gun owner and an attendee of the convention, I am filing a complaint with the Republican Party, the Convention Center, my elected officials, and all others who appear relevant to the situation.

This is not how any citizen is to be treated. Period. It is a violation of everything that we believe in; free speech, the Right to keep and bear arms, and the Right to move about freely without being questioned.

And what does he think he’s doing challenging Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf for the Virginia 10th District Republican nomination?

10th District Republican primary candidate Vern McKinley (center) with Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McKinley’s wife, Nona, at the April, 2008 Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly.

Folks, I am taking Vern McKinley very seriously because anything can happen in a publicly invisible election as the June 10 GOP primary certainly will be - and Vern has a valid message. If he gets a scintilla of the money he needs to get that message out, Frank Wolf will be toast, and we may get a true citizen-legislator representing us in the House of Representatives.

It is not insignificant that Dick Heller, plaintiff in DC v Heller - the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court which may have an immense impact on 2nd Amendment policies throughout the nation - spent most of a weekend last month visiting with attendees at the Nation’s Gun Show event in Chantilly … in the general vicinity of Vern McKinley’s booth. Heller was not campaigning, but there was a clear common interest between McKinley’s supporters and Heller, who might understandably have taken offense at Frank Wolf’s refusal to support the effort by Virgil Goode to overturn DC’s gun ban.

Prior to meeting him at the gun show, my only familiarity with Vern McKinley was based on a local Republican event where he addressed the local committee, and my impression was that Vern speaks like a regular guy - not a “political orator.” For me, this is not a negative, because I am more and more interested in the notion that our government is supposed to be one where regular citizens make the decisions. Furthermore, our current political leadership in America is a minefield of “orators” whose heads are firmly implanted where the sun don’t shine.

Vern carries a well-worn copy of the U.S. Constitution in his jacket pocket, and in our conversation he noted first of all that “home rule doesn’t override the Second Amendment.”

But his disagreements with Frank Wolf extend far beyond the issue of gun rights.
Read the rest of this entry »

It may not be all that life is about, but it definitely is a part of what life is all about:

Tomorrow, Dan, ACTivist, Jacob and I will be at the range for a good number of hours and an exponentially larger number of rounds, plinking, blasting and challenging each other’s mettle.

Targets and clay pigeons will be obliterated, skills will be honed, glorious machines will be brought to bear, manhoods will be questioned, and epithets will fly amidst the cordite. God willing, it is going to be a VERY politically incorrect afternoon.

I promise a semi-comprehensive range report.

Gosh, we do have a gift for controversy here. As a matter of balance, to bring the love, I feel compelled to offer some middle-of-the-road, common-sense subject matter on which we all can certainly agree: The sheer awesomeness of the AK-47.

First, some serious treatments. (If your attention span has you seeking short, stupid entertainment - and why else would you be here - go ahead and skip the first two videos. They require too much … brain-thinking.)

Remember how those “anti-drug” films they showed us in elementary school back in the early 1970s, er, kind of made you curious about drugs rather than repelled by the idea of them? Well, this two part documentary about the AK-47, “The Real WMD,” might have a similar effect.

Rather, will have a similar effect.

Documentary Part One:

Documentary Part Two:

Now, on to the intellectually manageable material.

Why do I want an AK-47. Why do YOU want an AK-47? Simply because: It costs $379, you cannot kill it, and it does this.

Such a raw artistic expression of the human psyche: A huge statue of an AK-47 in Iraq. Who among us cannot relate to that?

This is politically incorrect, and you know that’s not a term I toss around lightly. But you almost have to watch it at least twice, because we were all children once.

Even if you are A) wasted off your ass, and B) not mechanically inclined - which I imagine would be an absolutely terrible state of affairs - you can field strip and reassemble one of these babies in the time it takes to gather your gun cleaning materials to work on your AR-15.

And no roundup would be complete without the mother of all AK-47 videos. (Credit to the original).

…or at 86.  The WaPo article says 83, the photo caption says 86.

 In any event, he was a great actor, and a fine representative of the NRA.