How Did You Spend Your Independence Day?

"BAGHDAD – How are you spending your 4th of July holiday? While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.'"

"Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

That IS patriotism, and service to country! Of course, for the past hour I've been complaining because it is raining outside . . .

h/t to Instapundit

July 4

Today is the day we celebrate the birth of the United States of America. Perhaps the greatest experiment in government ever conceived on this planet. A republic that continues to evolve, but is still a beacon for the world. While the U.S. has its critics, and some high profile celebs move away because they disagree with policy or because of a utopian collective European outlook, there are far more people in the world desperate to move here, to become Americans, because of the promise for a better tomorrow this nation represents.

It is our duty to preserve the legacy left to us by the Founders of this nation. That's why we work fiercely to keep the Bill of Rights intact, and to restore those freedoms that have been frittered away over time by people who, smugly, look down upon much of the citizenry. We owe that to the Founders, but more importantly, to our children, and our children's children.

In honor, I present my favorite presentations of America The Beautiful, from The Gaither Vocal Band and Ray Charles.

Today, take a moment to reflect on what this day means. And be sure to say at least once today the words, "Happy Birthday America!"

Wilmette Not Just Suspending Enforcement; Will Now Consider Revoking Ban Ordinance

An update to the story about officials in Wilmette, Ill, who last week shortly after the Heller decision was announced, made their own announcement -- the Illinois city was suspending enforcement of its gun ban ordinance.

NOW COMES WORD that the town plans to consider action this coming Tuesday to repeal its gun ban ordinance.

Hmmm. Would that be because they suddenly realize the law was illegal to begin with, as evidenced by Heller? Or perhaps they knew it was unconstitutional all along, but don't that fact shoved in their faces with a lawsuit? Their claim is that the law really doesn't work.

Well, okay . . . that IS a good reason, but one that is rarely invoked or acted upon. Government usually does not like to "un-do" its regulatory laws, particularly when it comes to firearms.

Regardless the motivation, it is progress. Do you think Chicago Mayor Daley is there yet, or is he still planning to piss away his city's tax dollars to defend the Windy City's equally non-effective firearms ban?

Heading Into Independence Holiday, Heller Dissenters Make One Ponder The Future

Independence Day in the United States.

A time for parades, cookouts, friends, family, spending time watching rain drizzle upon a beautiful lake, camping, bike rides, and more. And let's not forget the fireworks! Boy, will there be fireworks!

But so many forget the blood and sweat and lives sacrificed for a greater good that this date represents. For an ideal of freedom and security. This date is but one of 365 on our calendar. Yet it is symbolic of so much more . . . and so many take it for granted.

So it is as we head into the extended July 4th holiday this year that I ponder the landmark Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, released just one week ago today.

More importantly, I ponder the feelings and irrational fears behind the words of the four justices who disagreed with Heller, and who have real problems with "the people" being rightly able to possess a firearm for whatever lawful purpose they choose. I ponder these justices' fear of "the people" rightly being able to use a firearm to defend themselves.

In Heller, there were two dissents. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissenting opinions for the minority, with all of the dissenting Justices signing onto their respective opinions. I break no new ground here, but it is troublesome that the overall vote was so close. Five to four. But for only one vote, there could be serious trouble brewing across this nation. And depending on the November presidential elections, and future appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, this case that finally affirmed what the Founders of this nation clearly intended could be reversed.

Like the high court's Dred Scott decision, the statement about slavery which was so very wrong until it was corrected, Heller is that correction to decades of Dred Scott-like federal decisions that have been devastating for the rights of this nation's moms and dads, and which went against the intent of the Founders. In most cities where there are draconian gun regulations, crime continues to skyrocket. All these regs do is penalize the law abiding, and embolden the most violent individuals in our society. And a handful of loud, pushy pols and judges just smile and suggest it is the price we pay in a free society in order to bring about the greater good.

But tell me what is greater, or good, when people are dying in their homes or on the street because they have been taught not to defend themselves?

In his dissent on Heller, which Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined, Justice Stevens states (somehow) that while the 2A represents an individual right, it is really a collective right that applies only to militias. Huh? Unless I'm reading it wrong, that is how I interpret his words.

Stevens writes:

"Similarly, the words "the people" in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment's preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of the individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects . . . " ". . . As used in the Fourth Amendment, "the people" describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense. But that observation does not settle the meaning of the phrase "the people" when used in the Second Amendment."

Okay, for the last time . . . what is it about the two simple words "the people" that these four justices do not understand? I find the dissenters reference to "the collective actions of the individuals " to be a most curious phrase. And one that in my editor's days we called out-and-out "weasel wording."

But there's more that is patently objectionable, and I wonder how any thinking person can agree with these statements from supposedly learned jurists, considering they are supposedly looking at case law and history. Consider the following:

"Thus, for most of our history, the invalidity of Second Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial."

What? Well settled and uncontroversial? There has been no "invalidity" to the objections to gun control. That's a response you use when you have your head in the sand. There has been much controversy. But not until states and cities during the past 25-30 years started passing irrationally thought-out statutes and ordinances targeting law abiding firearms owners for merely possessing guns -- all in the name of fighting crime. Adding insult to injury, BATF started issuing opinions during the same period that were procedurally difficult to challenge, harrassed law abiding people -- and profiling minorities -- coming and going from gun shows.

So was it pretty much settled? Well, prior to this time no one challenged the private ownership of guns. Firearms for self defense were respected, were expected. It wasn't until the tidal wave of gun regs started happening in the 1960s that the "hey, wait a minute" argument from gun owners started to occur. But by then, elitist politicians (and their willing helpers in the judiciary) started suggesting that the argument is closed, is over, and any deviation or complain is invalid.

Not in the United States, it isn't!

So once again, as we consider the July 4th holiday, what it stands for, and the power that is returned to the people of America by the Heller majority opinion, you wonder what politicians fear. A letter writer to the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle had the following to say:

"The Founders didn't trust government -- period! They didn't even trust themselves as a group because they knew -- and we know -- that a guy or group of people given a little power will always crave more. (That's another good reason to never vote for an incumbent, no matter how good he may be the first time in office.)"

Back to Stevens. His closing commentary is the most disturbing. I preface his statements with an observation on how the words are so reminiscent to me of something Al Gore once said. When he was running for president, Gore told reporters "there is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law" regarding his using White House phones to call campaign donors. Seven times in a White House news conference on March 3, 1997, he invoked that phrase. He could not say he had broken no law. Because he had and everyone knew it. His weasel-word statement (as the Washington Post described it) said that apparently, that there are no cases testing the law. So therefore, by implication, it was okay.

So here is the Stevens conclusion that raises an eyebrow:

"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court's opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Um. Yes they did. It is the Al Gore statement all over again. And yes, the Framers DID make a choice to limit the tools whereby government could regulate the use of firearms by the populace. Because they feared government, and wanted the people to have the means to keep government in check. If you read the writings of the Founders of this nation, they were quite clear on the matter.

On to Justice Breyer, who suggests in his dissent that the Washington DC gun ban represents that "greater good" I referenced earlier.

He writes:

". . . A legislature could reasonably conclude that the law will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury and reducing crime. The law is tailored to the urban crime problem in that it is local in scope, and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which are specifically linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelming favorite weapon of armed criminals; and at the same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted."

Where to begin . . .

First, the ban forwarded no goal of importance, only a utopian ideal that was quickly disproven. Violent crime rose during the 30+ years the DC gun ban was in place. It did not save lives. How could it have? Law abiding people weren't able to keep a handgun for their self defense, either out on the street or in their own home!

And the last time I checked, I thought that competition rifles (so-called "assault weapons") were the choice of criminals! At least that's the message trotted out EVERY time the issue comes up before a local or state legislature.

Moreover, he suggests in his dissent that the government has a compelling public safety interest to consider. What about the public safety interests of the public that elects and pays the salary of the government? Isn't the government, "the people?" He notes that handguns are the most popular weapon used by violent criminals. I would remind the good Justices that handguns are the most popular tool used by moms to protect their kids from violent thugs, to protect young women from a violent or conniving rapist, to protect grandma from a thief who thinks her frailness will be his ticket for the night . . . Of course, in the end, the dissenting Justices finally acknowledge this point. That what makes it good for self defense is what makes it good for criminals. Yet law abiding people are in the majority and for more three decades were disarmed -- they were punished for the actions of a few.

The worst kind of peer pressure if you ask me. DC residents were not, are not, kids in elementary school. They have rights, and Heller restored those rights that were taken away.

And finally, Justice Breyer writes (and this one is more than disturbing, it is cavalier):

"Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Interesting. In this, a classless society, Justice Breyer is relegating people who live in urban areas as second-class citizens. There is no other way to describe what he has done, and no way to defend it. If wants to blame anyone for the tsunami of cases coming toward the courts, it is not the majority of the Court, nor the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, nor any other plaintiff in cases like these.

No, he should be blaming the "screw the Constitution, just get rid of the guns" crowd who perpetuated these ordinances and statutes over the past three decades. What is coming to a court near you is an effort to undo decades of arrogance. Decades of coddling criminals while the law-abiding were effectively disarmed.

The District of Columbia v. Heller was . . . is . . . a case that will be talked about for decades. Like Brown v. Education. Like Dred Scott. It is more like the case that fixed Dred Scott.

And the affirmation that came last week, of the one amendment to the Constitution that protects all of the others, has been a wake-up call to people around the nation that they can get their rights back. If they are willing to fight.

You know what it took to get this done? The right timing. And rational argument instead of shrill, emotional rhetoric that got these bans, regulations and registration schemes passed in the first place. And as we head into Independence Day 2008, it is good to remember a case like Heller affirms what the Framers intended. But it can be undone with a single vote. A troubling thought, to be sure.

In conclusion, regarding the opinions by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, with respect, I dissent.

C&E, ShowMasters Spark Return Of The Central Ohio Gun Shows

After an absence of several months, gun shows are returning to Central Ohio!

I have not commented on this in this forum because I am an officer of Peoples Rights Organization, a stateside grassroots firearms rights organization that used gun shows as a fundraising tool for advocacy efforts and to help underwrite free crime avoidance programming throughout the state. Legal and criminal issues are pending and I have just felt it was not appropriate to address those things here.

As many are aware, after a nearly 15-year run, the PRO Gun Shows, as they were called, came to a halt suddenly earlier this year when the promoter the organization paid to run the events unexpectedly fled the state leaving behind a dizzying trail of unpaid bills. His actions shook the gun show industry around the nation, and many, many people who were vendors or paid staff at the shows he ran were left damaged.

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS! C&E Gun Shows and ShowMasters, of Blacksburg, Va., is coming to Ohio! The combined organizations have taken over PRO Gun Shows' show dates, and the shows they put on will be something Ohio has not seen before.

Go to www.cegunshows.com and www.showmasters.us for information on this dynamic show organization, and its complete multi-state show schedule. They are the "Big Dogs" in gun shows. Here is the rundown on the Ohio dates that have been announced:

August 9-10 -- Columbus, Franklin County Veterans Memorial (a 1,700 table show!)
Sept. 13-14 -- Wilmington, Roberts Centre
Oct 25-26 -- Columbus, Westland Mall
Nov. 1-2 -- Wilmington, Roberts Centre
Nov. 29-30 -- Columbus, Franklin County Veterans Memorial
Jan. 3-4. 2009 -- Columbus, Westland Mall

I have met Steve and Annette Elliot, owners of the two organizations, and am very impressed with the way they approach gun shows, not just as a business, but as a venue for networking, advocacy, teaching, and family entertainment. Moreover I share their passion -- and I mean PASSION -- for the Second Amendment. Their commitment comes through in conversation, word and deed.

So put the show dates on your calendar! There currently are some problems with the PRO website, so for now it is best to get updated info from the C&E Gun Shows website. There will be many more announcements in the coming weeks regarding events going on concurrent with the gun shows. As soon as the PRO site is working properly (there was a virus issue), I will let you know.

So two things -- First, be sure to support your Second Amendment, rejoice in the Heller decision (the affirmation of the Second Amendment), and come out an enjoy a family event by visiting the new gun shows, the first of which will be held in Columbus in August. BTW, if you were not aware, Columbus has not enjoyed a gun show since the 1980s, when politically motivated ordinances were passed that drove the huge money making events (for Columbus hotels and restaurants) out of the city.

And second: Annette and Steve (and C&E and ShowMasters), welcome to Ohio! We look forward to a long and mutually rewarding relationship!

The ACLU On Heller

The American Civil Liberties Union responds to the Heller decision. Curt, to the point, and way outside the mainstream.

How this organization can continue to say that the Bill of Rights all protect individual rights . . . well, except that pesky Second Amendment, is beyond me.

You will want to read all the comments sent to the ACLU regarding its "collective rights" position.

h/t to Pete Stryjewski

How Gun Control Lost

Steve Chapman, writing for ReasonOnline, has an excellent piece titled, "How Gun Control Lost."

I am not going to comment on it. Just read it, and pass it on.

It says it all.

If Obama Were Appointing Justices To The Supreme Court

Remember how I have talked about firearms policy, both in court and in the legislature, where you have to be thinking five to 10 moves in advance? Just like chess? Well consider this:

If Barack Obama were president, and was making appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would those people be? Some have suggested Hillary Clinton may get a nod, though her confirmation in the Senate would be an uphill battle. Even with her political party in control.

But use the chess scenario. Play several moves ahead, and consider this. The scarier thought is of the "type" of people Obama would nominate. People who would want to roll back the DC Heller decision before a similar case out of Chicago ever got to the High Court.

Make sense? Syndicated columnist Robert Novak has been thinking about it also.

"The issue will return when Chicago's handgun ban, modeled after the Washington law, is challenged in the courts. As a Chicago lawyer, Obama can hardly plead ignorance as he did concerning the D.C. ban. But with the case wending its way back to the Supreme Court for the next year, Obama will not have to answer the question before November. "While Scalia's opinion for now saves Obama from defending a court that had emasculated gun rights, one inconvenient truth confronts the candidate. He has made clear that as president he would nominate Supreme Court justices who agree with the minority of four that the Second Amendment is meaningless."

Worth reading. Pass it along.