That would be the suppressed Remington 11-87 used by Javier Bardem as hitman Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. It';; be part of the National Firearms Museum "Hollywood Guns" exhibit, which will open later in the spring.
The movie tripped off a lot of threads about whether shotguns could be suppressed. Apparently, the answer is yes, especially in Europe. Consider HushPower, who makes this natty O/U (and, no, it's not available here):
Anyway, movie guns are always fun, and I look forward to my ext trip to the Museum.
There's a really cool op-ed column on Fox on our brave President Barack Hussein Obama and his Justice Department's response to today's Supreme Court oral arguments, titled Why Is Obama Hiding Under His Desk:
In major cases, it’s typical for the Justice Department to file a brief informing the Supreme Court of the position of the United States. The Office of the Solicitor General -- the elite legal team that represents the federal government whenever the United States is a party in a Supreme Court case -- routinely files briefs in high-profile cases.
McDonald is as high-profile is it gets. It presents the question of whether the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, is a right that law-abiding citizens have against state and local laws, or if, instead, it’s only a right they have against the federal government alone. The entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally only applied to the federal government. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, it extended most—but not all—of the Bill of Rights to also apply to cities and states.
Given that there are over 90 million gun owners in this country and thousands of gun control laws on the books—most of them state or local laws—McDonald is a monumental case.
So what is the position of the Obama administration? How can he oppose the rights of 90 million Americans, many of whom are blue collar union workers in swing states that he needs to win in 2012? To do so would also help drive Democrats into the minority in the 2010 midterm elections. On the other hand, how can he reverse his position of more than a decade in supporting Chicago’s absolute ban on firearms?
In this difficult situation, President Obama’s position is … Nothing.Golly, I guess he just voted "Present," as he has done so many times before. And it has served him well...after all he did get elected President. I'll bet I'm not the only American who nottices that the more you get to know BHO, the less impressive a person he is.
We're humping it over at DRTV getting commentary up on the oral arguments...it's frustrating that the Supremes decided NOT to release the tapes of the oral argument, but we did have David Hardy and Jim Shepherd in the room. Jim's excellent commentary should be up in a short while. Meanwhile, we've also go Sebastian from the SNOWFLAKES IN HELL blog with some of his observations from the Supreme Court chambers already up.
The SCOTUS blog has its analysis up...here's the nut:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations. The eagerly awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521) found all members of the Court actively involved except the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas. And, while no one said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment had already been decided before the argument had even begun, the clear impression was that the Court majority was at least sentimentally in favor of that, with only the dimensions of the expansion to be worked out in this case and in a strong of likely precedents coming as time went on.Keep checking at DRTV for updates and analysis...