Page Nine

Five Year War

The lamestream media told you:

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, we've had this many soldiers killed from our country, this many from other countries, we've spent this much money, we have endless challenges remaining, there is no end in sight unless you elect the people we tell you to, and the dead include brothers and sisters, family members, parents and good people who volunteered, possibly without realizing what they were getting into. Those surviving have wounds, mental stresses, job problems at home, and many face the horrific prospect of being reassigned to duty.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Tales of heroism and success were notably absent in lamestream reports of the 5th anniversary of this conflict, whether you support the effort or not. The media's one-sided bias is as reprehensible here as anything they've released in recent memory. There were probably some tales of accomplishment in the "news," but none crossed my desk in print, so maybe this is my fault.

Rebuilt infrastructure, newly opened embassies and consulates, the education of women, significant reductions in Islam-on-Islam bedlam between Sunnis and Shiia, massive blows to al-Qaida members and leadership, and a constant flow of valuable intelligence and oil to points outside Iraq were unreported, for reasons that remain unclear at press time. Honor, courage, valor, bravery, sacrifice, compassion and love were also unmentioned. No correction has been made.

Direct reports from valiant American soldiers deployed in Iraq, which have reached the Uninvited Ombudsman, have an upbeat and positive tone, giving an impression that people doing the heavy lifting, at least, believe things are going better than the media believes. More than one expressed shock and awe on returning home and seeing the drivel being fed to the American public. "You're not getting the truth," one soldier said.

In other news, in a small, single-column story buried on page 15 locally, the usually unreliable USA Today reports, "Foreign militants fleeing Iraq, weakened al-Qaida disenchants fighters." A growing number are fleeing "or attempting to flee," because their effort is being wrecked by U.S.-led forces.

"They're being told in their countries of origin by facilitators that, 'Hey, we're basically winning the war against the apostates,' said Brig. Gen. Michael Flynn, intelligence director for Central Command. "They go there and find out it's not quite the case." The report claims 90% of suicide bombers are foreign recruits from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and most enter from Syria. No mention of the fifth anniversary was included in the brief report.

Second Amendment's Meaning

The lamestream media told you:

For the first time in history, the Supreme Court is addressing the meaning of the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Second Amendment. Widely understood to protect a right of the states to arm a militia, the Court may find a "newly recognized right" (NY Times) for individuals to keep and bear arms. The District of Columbia, which bans deadly handguns, says this is a reasonable restriction based on crime statistics, rifles are better suited to home self defense than handguns, guns can be unlocked and re-loaded by an old lawyer in the dark in just three seconds, and handguns are more dangerous than machine guns. A decision is expected in June.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Hey, I didn't make that up, it's what appeared on TV, in The New York Times, USA Today, and what the city's attorney said in open court. The part about a decision in June is accurate.

The D.C. v. Heller case was the 96th gun case to reach the High Court, 36 of which name or quote from the Second Amendment. The rest deal with gun ownership, possession and use. This is clearly documented in Supreme Court Gun Cases, which reproduces all the cases, including the nearly forgotten 14 self-defense shootout cases that read like adventure novels. Heller is the 64th gun case to reach the Court since the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Miller case in 1939.

"The Supreme Court has consistently recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for 200 years," says co-author Alan Korwin, who spent six years with two co-authors researching the book.

The book:
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Heller Case Wrap-up:
http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-Heller4-Wrapup.htm

The Photo Galleries:
http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-HellerPhotos1.htm

Tags: D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court, Second Amendment

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 8

Links I’ve Found

FOX-TV 5 in Wash. D.C. did a lengthy piece that included me.

Dave Hardy’s blog has a photo and commentary.

Jason McCrory, first in line, has posted batches of photos and commentary.

Bob and I performed (sort of) some Cartridge Family Band tunes (without music missing a part) and someone videoed it and put it on YouTube:

 

Above The Law blog also posted our impromptu performance, with viewer comments.

Hopelessly biased video propaganda -- guns are bad, D.C. trying to save the world.

Dick Heller, who legally carries a gun as a security guard, is prevented by Washington, D.C., law from taking that gun to his home in the district. "They give me a gun to protect them," he says of the government, "but I'm a second-class citizen when I finish work."

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 7

This Is The 96th Gun Case, Not The First

Please understand I do not accept the universally promoted characterization that the Heller case is the first 2A case in 70 years, or that is the only case to directly address the central issue of individual rights. I am a minority of one perhaps, but those widely circulated sentiments don’t meet my tests for validity.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized an individual right in the Second Amendment for 200 years. I did the research and published the book, with plenty of help and two co-authors.

In dicta and holdings, there is no body of cases that are inconsistent with the idea that 2A is a long extant right of people -- the same people found in 1A, 4A, 9A and 10A. Of the 92 in Supreme Court Guns Cases, 89 flatly support the American right to arms. The remaining three can be timorously clung to by those hoping to eradicate a human right.

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 6

The Case That Almost Wasn’t

People don’t realize that the pro-rights and anti-rights lobbies were against bringing a Second Amendment case to the U.S. Supreme Court. There was just too much to lose to risk a win.

Pressure was brought to bear on D.C. mayor Fenty’s office to not appeal the ruling that voided the District’s draconian gun ban -- on Second Amendment, individual-rights grounds. The case had potential to permanently overturn the ban, and improve the status of other challenges to denials of firearms rights around the country.

But in the final analysis, D.C.’s gun ban was history anyway if they didn’t appeal, because the Circuit Court’s ruling would stand, D.C. would endure a hard slap to the face, and the government would relinquish the iron grip it had placed on people’s rights since 1976 -- a prospect government doesn’t generally take kindly to. And they had their bruised egos to think about too.

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 5

Getting Seats

What it took to get into the Court for the D.C. v. Heller case, March 18, 2008:

Heller and his two attorneys were originally allotted six seats total, including for themselves, and had to disappoint people who believed they should be there. I wasn't able to find out how many D.C. secured but I suspect it was more (three at the Petitioner table, the mayor and police chief who sat right in front of me and had aides; Dellinger's wife was to my right, but not sure how her seat was obtained).

A special section reserved for the Supreme Court press corps filled as fast as the case was announced, no surprise there.

An allotment of 50 seats for members of the Supreme Court bar also filled nearly immediately, and may have been expanded for this special case. Personal friends of the Justices get preference, and other court and government officials with “pull” manage to secure an unknown number of seats. It was by far the hottest ticket in town -- history in the making -- the Roe v. Wade of the gun issue except Roe wasn’t as important.

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 4

News Distortions

THEM: “People have been waiting in line all night for front row seats,” usually with pictures of people lined up on the white marble steps of the Court.

REALITY: People who had to line up overnight (“the rabble” as a lawyer friend called them) sat in the back, lucky to get in at all. Front row seats were packed with honchos. No one waited on the steps, this was forbidden. Before being led in, the wait-ers were assembled on the steps and then directed inside.

--------

US: Why is the Associated Press so consistently anti-rights in their gun reporting, and why do they flatly refuse to correct any of the egregious even self-evident errors they make on the subject constantly?

AP (Mark Sherman): I have no idea what you’re talking about and we make error corrections rapidly all the time. And no, I forgot to bring any business cards.

US: Well have you ever done any stories on the good that guns do?

AP: Uh, what do you mean exactly?

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 3

Loose Notes (including Dellinger and Gura recaps)

Eight security people with curly cords in their ears stood stone-faced facing the audience as we entered and after we were seated. They moved aside before the Justices entered. The D.C. police chief (on the side arguing to disarm the public) was disarmed before being allowed to enter. Armed Supreme Court Police were everywhere (the federal government now has more than 70 armed police forces, including egg inspector police, print shop police (not the place where money is printed, those are different police) and environmental protection agency police).

I keep trying to dissect the transcript but I find I can’t add anything to all the commentary that’s been done, and all the public record that’s been accumulated. What was said that day is precisely known. What it means is speculative, and everyone’s got an opinion, why muddy the waters with my own. My initial impressions, good and bad, have been softened, adjusted, modified, better digested, added to and subtracted from, and have matured with time, the counsel of learned friends, reading, and time for reflection. All that matters now is waiting for the next set of official words, the decision.

It seemed to me like Gura did get the job done, which was to get the Justices to recognize that the D.C. law can’t stand in the face of an individual right embodied in the Second Amendment. That’s all that was on trial in the thinly sliced baloney of the Supreme Court’s method. Machine guns, a thinly veiled tangent and effort to subvert the main question, was neatly sidestepped by Gura, and likely prepared for in advance, although this raised some hackles and definitely has a downside -- even though it was not material to the solitary goal of overturning D.C.’s ban on other guns at home.

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 2

Good Things

1. The case unequivocally informs the record. All the solid research the pro-rights people are familiar with can no longer be conveniently denied or lied about by the antis, the Bradys, the lamestream media, the politicians, the U.N. and the rest -- it is certifiable public record. This is a good thing. The tremendous value of this cannot even be known yet, but it will be substantial in years to come. It has gotten the best scholarship in the open. I’m guessing the “news” media hates that.

2. We have some good new words and phrases injected into the debate, like “remote settlers” whose need for arms was personal, fundamental, oriented to family, food and self defense, and not militia related (thank you Justice Kennedy); “lineage” of both rights and limitations; “reading glasses delays” which Chief Justice Roberts used to humiliate D.C.’s lawyer (thank you Mr. Dellinger for your 3-second-trigger-lock hooey), and perhaps most important, “operative clause” which describes the part of 2A that says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”).

3. With luck, the case denies the antis what they want most -- a ban. They talk junk guns, assault guns, high capacity guns, registered guns, but what they really want is a total ban. If you have a right to have a real gun in your home, their hopes for a ban are dashed.

4. That would have international implications as well, because it would undermine the globalists, anti-Americans, rogue states, human-rights offenders, NGOs, tyrants and collectivists aligned with the U.N. who want a universal declaration of rights that doesn’t include your right to protect yourself or the means to do so.

5. The bogus collectivist inventions are exposed as the fraud they are. In recent decades, the hoplophobic antis have fished around for arguments to deny this right Americans have always enjoyed. They went from collectivist, to statist, to limited individual, to militia-ist, to hybrid -- all concoctions and now well dismembered.

Read more: Loose Notes (including Dellinger and Gura recaps)

Tags: D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court

D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Wrapup: Part 1

Read more in the series:

• Good things
• Loose Notes (including Dellinger and Gura recaps)
• News Distortions
• Getting Seats
• The Case That Almost Wasn’t
  
• This Is The 96th Gun Case, Not The First
• Links I've Found

Like everyone, I’m on pins and needles to see the decision, all the speculation is fun but meaningless, but fun. Yes, the Court seemed favorable to an individual right and overturning the D.C. total gun ban, even the lamestream media picked that up. But then you have to think about the Kelo decision (eminent domain) and McCain-Feingold (free-speech ban before an election), and it’s got to worry you. There’s no crystal ball.

The biggest problem I see is difficulty the Court faces in recognizing Second Amendment rights to invalidate the D.C. law, and somehow limiting that decision so laws don’t fall nationwide -- the Solicitor General’s concern. OK, so D.C.’s total ban goes too far. How far can D.C. go when it rewrites its law and not offend the Second Amendment? How do you describe that?

Whatever direction the Court provides, D.C. will end up as a model for the rest of the nation, and the Pandora’s Box is open. If D.C.’s law falls, they’ll pass something new, knowing full well it won’t make it to the Supreme Court for another long long time.

It’s lunacy to think there are no legitimate gun laws, as some loonies suggest, and that they all must fall. Disarmed prisoners, sentence enhancements, threats, reckless endangerment, smuggling -- the hard-core criminal laws are not at risk, because those bans are not infringement. Those are reasonable, common-sense gun laws everyone wants (except the hard-core criminals).

But concealed carry, public possession, prohibited-places lists, travel, bureaucratic discretion, licenses, registration schemes -- these are indeed put in jeopardy by a robust finding for 2A. Maybe the Court will limit itself narrowly to a person at home in D.C. and go no further, which would be a good first step but awfully hollow. And it would of course address the questions posed, and follow SOP for the Court.

Remember, the Bradys wanted this answered:

“Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns  while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.”

And Heller’s team proposed this as the question:

"Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.”

But the Supremes, in a rare move, posed the issue themselves:

“Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not  affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Read more: Good things

Tags: D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court