Wednesday, June 30, 2010

"Reasonable Restrictions" from Chicago & Daley-- As Predicted

Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy wrote a great article about the practical impacts of McDonald v. Chicago. Ilya stated, "The ideologically divided nature of the Court’s decision suggests that the legal status of the Second Amendment isn’t yet completely secure. That said, the decision will have a substantial practical impact in a few areas…"

Ilya is correct that the Second Amendment isn't yet completely secure. Ilya is also correct to predict "substantial practical impact," although, the "impact" planned in Chicago is, I believe, exactly OPOSITE of what the Court intended.

In comment, both to that post and here, I wrote of my fears of what Daley would do to "get around" McDonald v. Chicago, and I predicted that his "reasonable restrictions" would be less than reasonable…

From the Chicago Tribune:
Each qualified gun owner in a home could have only one handgun under a new ordinance being drawn up that could be heard by the City Council Police and Fire Committee as soon as Thursday, officials said. The ordinance would require handgun owners to register their weapons with the Police Department and keep them secured inside the home.

The measure also likely would force gun owners to take safety training classes, undergo a criminal background check and obtain liability insurance, city officials said. City Hall also is mulling a formal ban on gun shops, said Mara Georges, the city's top attorney.

"Reducing the number of handguns in Chicago is critical to public safety," Georges said. "The same concerns that motivate a one handgun per person per residence limit — reducing the number of guns in circulation in Chicago and the risk of illegal traffic in guns — motivate the gun dealer ban."

First- keeping guns secured inside the home is a DIRECT AND BLATANT violation of DC v Heller

Second- Being required to obtain liability insurance to exercise your SECOND Amendment Rights would be NO DIFFERENT from being required to obtain SLANDER insurance to exercise your FIRST Amendment Rights…

Third- Criminal Background Checks are ALREADY required under federal law- don't make it sound like it is YOUR idea, Mayor Daley.

Fourth- BANNING GUN DEALERS is an illegal restraint of lawful trade in my humble opinion.  They are talking "DEALERS" here, which would seem include the private FFL holder.

Fifth- If DALEY really thinks there should be a ONE firearm limit to the Second Amendment, then I propose that his FIRST Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech be limited to ONE SPEECH per decade... (that actually is not a bad idea-- he really should just sit down and shut up).

The only thing not mentioned by the Chicago Tribune was how much you would have to bribe "donate to City Hall" to have your registration approved.

Of course, Chicago will say this is all very reasonable-- After all a ZERO gun limit to ONE gun limit is a 100% increase- how much more reasonable can they be????


Oh, how I hate being right when I make predictions of what extremes the left will go to...

ACLU Issues Travel Warning Against Arizona

The ACLU is issuing warnings about travelling to Arizona.

The "warning" basically states that travel to Arizona could lead to racial profiling. The Arizona Chapter of the ACLU has stated they already have had reports of "profiling" and wanted to get the warnings out before July 4.

Except, the law does not go into effect until July 29.

Further, it would seem that this is nothing more than a publicity grabbing, misinformation campaign.

First- As an Arizona native, I can say with 100% conviction that my facts are accurate in that JULY is likely NOT Arizona's best month for tourism. With the exception of parts of Northern and Eastern Arizona the state is HOT during July (and many from the North or East would say Northern and Eastern Arizona are too hot for them). July is the start of the monsoon, the lower elevations are not only HOT (115 in the shade) but also MUGGY, with a good amount of humidity and rain. The fall and winter are MUCH bigger tourism months for the state, with the influx of the seasonal "snow-birds."

(With that said, I have been 'home' to Phoenix in July and August, and I think the weather is fine-- although the kids thought it was hot. One of them dropped a Crayon on the asphalt when we went to visit the zoo and was suprised to see a puddle of molten wax when we returned to the car!)

Second- SB1070 is a SECONDARY offense-law. You cannot be stopped unless you are violating another law! This is no different from secondary seat-belt laws- you cannot get "pulled over" for not wearing your seat-belt. You can only get a ticket, if you are "pulled over" for something else. (With that said, Kansas just made not wearing a seat-belt a "Primary" offense).

Third- 1070 DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL JULY 29!!!! WHY warn people on July 4th, unless it is to get press attention?

Personally, as a Native of Arizona, I would say we don't want the ACLU in Arizona to start with, so I suggest that you, the members of the ACLU, follow your own warning and STAY OUT of Arizona…

The Governor's office was a bit more polite:
"The legislation includes very specific language that makes it abundantly clear that racial profiling is and will continue to be illegal in Arizona," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said. "Instead of spreading fear, hate, and disinformation about the legislation, it would be helpful for the ACLU to instead join Governor Brewer's demand that the federal government stop discussing and begin implementing an honest plan to secure our nation's border."

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago

I am sure most people were expecting me to write yesterday rejoicing in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. Unfortunately, the ruling was 214 pages and I have yet to complete reading it.

With that said, yes I am very happy about the ruling but I am concerned about what will actually result.

My suspicion is that Mayor Daley of Chicago has already said, "Justice Alito has delivered his opinion, now let him enforce it."

Unfortunately, the Court remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit for more proceedings. This may take an additional couple of years to resolve, just in this case. The reverse and “remand” leaves LOTS of time for the 7th Circuit to “procee[d] slowly and incrementally” and then “submit their opinion in longhand”  (quoting from Justice Scalia's concurrence mocking Justice Stevens).

This is CHICAGO POLITICS we are talking about. Daley is not only going to run with locks (probably one only available from the City at great cost), lock inspections etc, he is going to place a “reasonable” licensing scheme in place– $50,000 per year (plus another $25K to $50K as a bribe “donation” to “expedite” your paperwork”) for the license to start with– and he will claim that is reasonable– as will the District Court, as will the 7th Circuit, and this will all end up back before SCOTUS in 3 years. THEN he will pull another similar law– City approved ammo, purchased only from the City– again at $1000 per box (plus your bribe “donation”)- and again he will claim it is reasonable– as will the District Court, as will the 7th Circuit– and this will all end up back before SCOTUS in 3 years after the last case. THEN he will pull another similar law–

(Do I need to continue– this is Daley and Chicago we are talking about– where do you think Obama and Emanuel learned their politics from?)

Unfortunately we are dealing with a VERY corrupt political environment in Chicago. Remember, 3 YEARS after Heller, there have only been 800 registrations in DC; and I cannot believe that there are ONLY 800 in DC that desire protection in their homes with a firearm– not after 3 years.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

After 222 Years, Tomorrow Is the Day

It is hard to believe that although the Constitution was written and ratified 222 years ago, the question of if the 2nd Amendment- the right to keep and bear arms, applies to the states, has not been resolved.

Tomorrow, we find the answer to that question, in that the Court will rule on this question in McDonald v. Chicago.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Supporting Arizona

I have finally become so sick and tired of listening to the left scream about the Arizona Illegal Immigration Act, that I have been prompted to write.

The continual reports of governments boycotting Arizona has gotten me to the point that, as a Native of Arizona I believe it is time for Arizona to Act.

First- The Federal Government has violated the Constitution and disregarded the 10th Amendment- the Health Care Act being a primary example

Second- Article IV of the Constitution- the Full Faith and Credit Clause- requires that each state recognize the acts of each other state. Therefore I would argue, based on Full Faith and Credit, that any boycott of Arizona is GROSSLY unconstitutional.

Third- Rather than the Justice Department dealing with the violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it has decided to sue Arizona

Fourth- The Federal Government has failed to protect the borders of the United States and the Arizona border

The Founding Fathers certainly would not have tolerated what the Federal Government is now doing. Their words:

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

So what can Arizona do? HCR 2034 seems to get it right.

But I think there needs to be a further step-- SHUT OFF ALL POWER generated in Arizona that is sent to California. Stop all contracts with Cities, Counties and Governments that Boycott Arizona, and Sue the Federal Government for failure enforce the Constitution. I would also take the step of turning off the water to LA as well-- and if necessary, call out the National Guard to enforce it.

It is time for this crap to stop. Arizona's law is Arizona's law.