Media & Guns

Here's an interesting blogpost that touches on tehe suicide subject of a couple of weeks ago:

Question: How little does the media know about guns?

Answer: From the AP, the actual MSNBC headline: “Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides.” This should surprise no one — except those who have fallen for the manipulation of statistics by the anti-gun lobby.

Question: Does this stop the media from pretending it is expert on guns?

Answer: No. From a Sacramento Bee editorial: “Some 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, a gun death toll greater than anywhere in Europe or Japan.” Plod on, oh Ignoramus Rex. Oblivion awaits.

Here's a direct link to the Bee editorial. Here's the link to my blogpost on how 33,o93 people killed themselves in Japan last year. This may be a shock to even the editorial writers at the Bee, but 33,093 is larger than 30,000, the combined total in the U.S. of suicides, homicides and accidents...and this in a country with a population of less than 1/2 the U.S!

Here's the email address for Editorial Page Editor David Holwerk: dholwerk@sacbee.com

You might send him a link to my blogpost...he won't answer, because the MSM is doesn't answer to anyone...especially the truth.

Monday in the Lobby

I'm on a creepy-slow hotel lobby Internet connect (on IE...yeech!), so I'll be brief...or as brief as I ever am.



I wanted to mention something about guns that wasn't about gun control. The cherubs and seraphim tell me that a major American ammunition manufacturer is getting ready to pop, so to speak, a high performance .380 round tailored specifically for the little Ruger LCP. Well why not? With sales still grinding through the stratosphere, the little LCP has redefined "pocket pistol" and given the long dis'sed .380 a quick poke in the butt. Mine is the very definiiton of "reliable" and it's now generally stoked with Cor-Bon DPXs.



Also in LCP news, Crimson Trace is now offering their LCP trigger guard-mounte laser - which is pretty cool...I've handled the prototypes a bunch - with a Galco pocket holster fitted for the laser. Neat set-up. Am looking forward to getting a laser on my LCP as soon as possible...like next week. I'm going to be appearing inthe next Crimson Trace training vid, BTW, which we'll be filming at the new Swanson Tactical training center outside of Salt Lake later this month.

I'll be at the .50 Caliber Worlds at the Whittington Center in NM on Saturday when they're shooting the Hunting class guns, doing a little filming for the upcoming DRTV Big .50 Internet series. I'll also have a chance to put some rounds downrange through my own Barrett 99...BOOMERS RULE!

I gotta run by SureFire before I head home...these days, you can't get in the building without signing a big non-disclose and promise to keep your eyes tightly shut when you walk around the campus.

The LAST Last Word

From Poligazette in the Netherlands, of all places:

Gun Control Lost; What Happened

It’s really quite simple: gun control legislation did not reduce violence. Secondly, people started actually reading the text of the second amendment of the United States Constitution. Thirdly, 'laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated - with no ill effects.’

To put it more succinctly; the idea that outlawing guns makes society more safe was proven wrong, this while Americans started to realize that, just perhaps, the US Constitution actually means what it says.

Who would have thought it could be that simple?

Maybe we should forward this to the Chicago Red Star...er, Tribune! Actually, this is a very accurate summation of a longer article in Real Clear Politics...you can read the whole thing there.

Politics and Heller

I missed a phone call yesterday from a high-speed national political reporter asking how Heller would play here in the Rocky Mountain West, accepted as one of major battlegrounds in November.

First, here's an interesting take on the subject from Eric Raymond over at ARMED & DANGEROUS:

Barack Obama has demonstrated, at least, great tactical cunning in his campaign. Therefore, I’m certain that right now he’s wishing the Heller ruling had come down 7-2 or better and he didn’t have to deal with what McCain is going to do to him over this issue.

I’ll finish by re-quoting McCain’s delicious, deadly zinger:

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,”

The sting here isn’t just McCain’s “sacred right” appeal to gun owners, it’s the way he links Obama’s anti-firearms record to the sense of elitism, entitlement and disdain for traditional American values that radiate from the man. These traits play well in Berkeley and on the Upper West Side, but they lose national elections.

We've all been thinking about this issue. Bottom line (for me) comes down to 2 points:

1) The "new" politics of b-HO is really the same old politics of lies that is in the DNA of Chicago and Cook County, IL. This means that there's no point in even listening to what he says — he's an opportunistic liar, like every other Chicago pol I've met. And I've met a bunch. Rather, he will do what he has done before, and that is nothing in our favor.
2) Although b-HO'd dream of nullifying the Second Amendment is now off the table, our ability to exercise that ennumerated right is still at risk, and we have no reason to believe that b-HO won't use the substantial powers of the Presidency (remember Bill Clinton?) to chip away at the right.

There has been a lot of political commentary to the effect that Heller takes guns off the table as an issue this fall. That analysis is consistent with the view of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and the MSM (which of course may be redundant)...the Bubbas have their precious Second Amendment, so now they'll chill, pop the top on a Bud and tune in NASCAR...

In the West, we're locked in a winner-take-all battle centering on what vision of the previously Wild West will prevail — will we be expat urban dwellers surrounded by millions of acres of a look-but-don't-touch park sprinkled with "acceptable" outdoor activities in specific areas, or will we continue a lifestyle that includes farming, ranching, hunting, fishing and shooting in addition to trendy mountain biking and rock climbing (and yes, I do both).

Just like in the cult movie Highlander, there can be only one.

It has taken us two years to beat back a U.S. Forest Service initiative to ban recreational shooting on public lands, and my sources inside USFS and other agencies tell me that "beat back" is indeed the operative words...we haven't won by a long shot. Should Obama be elected, those antigun/antihunting elements — and they are one in the same, as my sources agree — within the federal agencies that administer public land will be emboldened to close literally millions of acres first to recreational shooting, next to hunting.

There are numerous other RKBA issues that Heller did nothing to settle — the flawed technology of ballistic fingerprinting, bullet serialization, one gun a month laws, so-called "assault weapon" bans (there's still one in place in Denver, BTW), the endless number of "nibbled to death by ducks" strategies employed by our enemies. An Obama Presidency would no doubt support and enhance those efforts.

Denver's mayor, whom I know and like as a person, is talking new gun laws as a way of avoiding the brutal reality in the Mile High City that after dark, the gangs own the streets. It takes a computer and a mapping genius to figure which parts of Denver belong to which Mexican, Central American (including MS-13), Asian or genuine all-American gang of thugs rules the turf. It's easy to talk new — and, as usual, worthless — laws directed against the law-abiding rather than addressing the real issue.

Typically, Democrats in Colorado (and most of the Rocky Mountain West) have been relatively gun friendly...some, such as Congressman John Salazar, copped an NRA endorsement. Governor Bill Ritter's campaign negated the gun issue by coming out in support of recreation shooting on public land while his Republican opponent largely ignored or took the gun vote for granted. In the fall Senatorial race, we see Boulder liberal Democratic Congressman Mark Udall frantically distancing himself from his former closest buddy, antigun fanatic Diana DeGette...I fully expect to see Udall out whacking Bambi any day now.

In the West, being blue on a local level doesn't guarantee a state majority for Obama. Western conservatism carries a strong tinge of the libertarian, which is why I live here. Outside of the expat urban centers like Denver and Boulder, the West is gun, arther than latte, country, and we are not fools.

The Inconvenient First Amendment

First, read this repulsive editorial from the Chicago Tribune...yesterday, they were so proud of it they bannered it on their editorial page...today they buried it down in their blog instead of queueing it onto the list of previous editorials...apparently, one of the few adults who still work at the Tribune read it and realized there's nothing quite as embarrassing as adolescent prose from aging hippies:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
[...]
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.

Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.

We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.

Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it.

I call for another debate, and unlike the sad remnants of a once-great newspaper, I don't think we need to repeal the First Amendment, but I think we need to consider reasonable restrictions on only a portion of the media.

While newspapers once filled an important role in society, their day has clearly passed. Cable television and the Internet have surplanted their role as newsgathers on an international, national and local scale. Newspapers no longer serve the function for which they were chartered — news — and instead provide a devisive and often harmful counterpoint to the communities they allegedly serve.

How many people are injured each year by incoorect and often malicious reporting? How much damage to the political and cultural body is sustained because of junior reporters, willing to work for the kibble the declining news business pays, attempt to "make their bones?" How much suffering must we put up with before we have this discussion?

The regulations I propose are simple, unobtrusive and will not in any way hinder newspapers' pursuit of whatever their wouldlike to pursue in their declining years:

1) Registration of all reporters and photographers, including a comprehensive list of their equipment allegedly used in "newsgathering." At their option, residences and businesses can post signage banning reporters or photographers from their premises, on penalty of arrest.
2) Because they represent a more "dangerous and unusual" threat, we call for the licensing of editors, including extensive background checks and annual renewals. Editors will not be allowed in public or government buildings or at public gatherings.
4) All newspapers must submit to a minor bit of prior restraint, providing for a review by adults in the newspaper's community before publication. So what that you get Tuesday's news on Wednesday? Youv'e already surfed the Internet for the real news.
5) Editorial page writers become responsible for the ethical, legal and moral consequences of each word they write. If, for example, an editorial leads even indirectly to a person;s death, the writers of that editorial are subject to laws on murder; bad fanancial reporting can leads to charges of conspiracy and grand theft.

Simple and straightforward...how can any right-thinking individual object?

Dense Weekend Reading

I strongly recommend that you spend some time onver on The Volokh Conspiracy reading through the Heller decision posts. There's a lot of 'em, and many are pretty dense, but they are all fascinating reading.

Also read Megan McCardle's fascinating piece over at The Atlantic:

Now the gun controllers pour out of the woodwork to claim that you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member with a gun than a criminal.

Some of the people deploying this statistic really ought to know better. Composition fallacy, anyone?

These are not double blind experiments. Guns may be the weapon of choice for all sorts of crimes; that does not mean that they cause the crimes.

Men like to kill themselves with guns. (This is not culture-specific; women tend to choose poison everywhere, presumably because of some deep fear of disfigurement). Gun suicides tend to be successful. But this does not mean that if you took away the guns, people wouldn't commit suicide. There are many other near-surefire ways of killing yourself, like jumping off a high bridge, gassing yourself with carbon monoxide, driving your car at high speed into a piling, hanging yourself, etc. Think of it this way: most people who choose to wear high heels are women. That doesn't mean that if I threw out my Manolos, I would turn into a man.

Post-Heller Commentaries

This AM I'm focusing on audio interviews for DRTV...Larry Keane, attorney for NSSF, is up and David Hardy of the "In Search of the Second Amendment" documentary will be up in minutes.

Meanwhile, read the excellent panel discussion on Reason Online...

June 26, 2008

I just looked up and discovered it is approaching 5PM, which means I've been glued to the computer since about 7:30AM after getting home from Colorado Springs late last night...I suddenly realize I am very tired.

We owe a huge debt to Bob Levy, Dick Heller and of course Alan Gura, but it is important to remember that nothing could have been accomplished without the people in the trenches for decades. We have fought the good fight, and we have gained a tremendous victory. The war isn't over, because the war for our freedom is never over. And we will rise to the new challenges, because that is who we are and what we do.

I only wish that Charlton Heston and my old friend Neal Knox could be standing here to see this day.

God help me, but I thought of high school Shakespeare...probably because I'm so whipped...

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

"We must take the current when it serves..." Today, June 26, 2008, the tide in the affairs of men turned toward liberty, and we will take that current.

The Michael Bane Blog is officially closed for the day.

Good Round Up Article on MSNBC

Here it is, and be sure to hit the live poll:

Advocates for gun rights quickly declared the ruling a landmark victory and said they would seek to strike down gun regulations across the country.

“This is a great moment in American history,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association.

In a statement, the White House said: “The president strongly agrees with the Supreme Court’s historic decision today that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms. This has been the administration’s long-held view. The president is also pleased that the Court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right.”
[...]
NRA to take battle to states
LaPierre said the NRA would use decision as “the opening salvo in a step-by-step process” to dismantle gun regulations in cities across the country. He said the NRA would begin with lawsuits in San Francisco and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.

Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, which has suffered a recent spate of gun violence affecting everyone from schoolchildren and teachers to the elderly, fervently criticized the ruling, calling it “a very frightening decision” that was incongruent with the Supreme Court’s own security policies.

“You can’t carry a gun into the Supreme Court,” Daley said. “You can’t carry a gun in and around the Capitol building. You can’t get into a capital building without being searched,” Daley said. “So why should the streets of our American cities be open to someone carrying a gun?

“Why can’t you stand outside the Supreme Court with a gun and say, ‘This is my constitutional right?’” he asked.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the other likely target state of the NRA’s first efforts, also criticized the ruling.

“I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it,” she said.

BTW, regarding to the last post, in addition to only being able to register one handgun per life in D.C., it's gotta be a revolver, since D.C. equates all semiauto firearms with machineguns.

Why We Must Stop Obama

In a word, "reasonable restrictions."

First this from Snowflakes in Hell on "What Should Scare Us":

Four justices of the Supreme Court of the United States were completely willing to read out part of the Bill of Rights because they don’t like the result that comes from it. We can seek comfort that we got a five vote majority, but it’s a little close for my comfort. Come this fall, we must do absolutely everything humanly possible to ensure that Barack Obama is defeated, or watch future courts retreat from the Heller ruling faster than you can shake a stick.

Already, the D.C. Attorney General is adding layers of additional regulations to their already Byzantine firearms legal structure/ This from the Washington Post:

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

Great piece from Armed Canadian addressing this very subject:

And if the Mayor's office does this, he is in violation of the ruling! A requirement to keep a firearm unloaded until needed is exactly the same thing as required it to be kept locked until needed. Mayor Fenty is splitting hairs here. Expect him to define unloaded as no ammunition near the gun, readily accessible for use in a gun and must be held in a separate, locked container. A magazine in a handgun but no round chambered he would define as "loaded".

Does he seriously want to spend another 5 years in court battles over semantics?

Newsfeed on Heller Decision

The DRTV site has an excellent newsfeed on Heller reactions, in addition to our own commentaries. Thare are also a couple of excellent threads on the DRTV Forums going right now.

We'll be talking to David Hardy and Larry Keane from NSSF tomorrow

First Lawsuits Against Chicago Filed!

At 9:15AM today the Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit against the city of Chicago for their ban on handguns; an NRA suit is already in the works. This from Chicago.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, and the ruling will likely invalidate the 26-year-old ban on handguns in the City of Chicago.

In fact, the Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.
[...]
Mayor Richard M. Daley is a staunch supporter of gun control, and said he does not know if the Supreme Court decision striking down Washington's handgun ban will affect the Chicago ban.

But the mayor called the ruling "a very frightening decision."

Dave Kopel on Heller

This from Dave Kopel on Pajamas Media:

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Second Amendment, and striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and the ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home, is solidly reasoned. Although the case leaves ample room for moderate gun control laws, the case casts doubt on the continuing validity of a variety of other gun prohibitions.

Justice Scalia, who has long shown an interest in firearms law and policy, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. A dissent written by Justice Stevens, and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer argued that the Second Amendment protects only an individual right of vanishingly small proportions — the right of a militiaman not to be disarmed by the federal government when he is on active militia duty. Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent, joined by the other three dissenters, arguing that even if the Second Amendment protects all law-abiding citizens, the handgun ban should be upheld because it is reasonable.
[...]
Today the law-abiding citizens of D.C. regained their right to defend themselves in their home, and to use the most suitable defensive arm for that purpose. But the bigger winner today was the Constitution itself, vindicated by a majority decision which was faithful to the Constitution’s text, and to the spirit of liberty which animated the American people who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.

We'll be talking to Dave later today on DRTV.

DRTV Podcast Commentaries on Heller...

...are up here.

One I HOPE Is Wrong!

From the Political Insider:

Supreme Court Makes Guns a Non-Issue

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the District of Columbia's 32 year ban on handguns as incompatible with the 2nd amendment is not exactly a win for Republicans -- even though it went farther than even the Bush administration hoped.

By re-affirming that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the court effectively takes the gun issue out of the fall campaign. Republicans will now have a very hard time arguing that if you elect Democrats they will take away your guns.

BTW, if you're having trouble hitting the blog, it's because traffic levels are staggering. Keep trying...

The first podcast material on DRTV should be up within the hour...

Second Amendment Foundation Weighs In

SECOND AMENDMENT TRIUMPH: JUSTICES UPHOLD INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

BELLEVUE, WA – With this morning’s ruling on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, America has begun “its long march back toward liberty under a Second Amendment that means what it says,” the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court should forever put to rest any contention that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental, individual civil right,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “For six decades, anti-gun rights extremists have engaged in a monumental fraud that has been unfortunately perpetuated by activist judges who erroneously insisted that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to service in a militia.

“Wisdom and truth have triumphed over hysteria and falsehood,” he continued. “This decision makes it clear that a right ‘of the people’ is a right enjoyed by, and affirmed for, all citizens. It destroys a cornerstone of anti-gun rights elitism, which has fostered – through years of deceit and political demagoguery – the erosion of this important civil right.

“This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” Gottlieb stated. “Today, America has taken a small but significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its proper place in our Bill of Rights.

“For too many years,” he observed, “Americans have seen this fundamental civil right under constant and unrelenting attack. We are hopeful that today’s decision will halt an insidious campaign for citizen disarmament through legislation and regulations that have made our neighborhoods less safe, our cities less secure and our people less self-reliant, which is the trait that has made America unique among nations.

“But this fight is hardly over,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today’s ruling is a stepping stone, the foundation upon which we can rebuild this important individual right. Our work has only just begun.”

NSSF Statement on Heller...

...is now up on DRTV:

Firearms Industry Hails Victory in Supreme Court Second Amendment Case

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia that determined authoritatively that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a major victory for all Americans,” said NSSF President Steve Sanetti. “The Heller decision reaffirms the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating the Bill of Rights to protect and preserve individual rights, the cornerstone of our democracy. Furthermore, this decision solidifies an historical fact, the commonsense understanding that governments have powers, not rights -- rights are reserved exclusively for individuals.”
[...]
"Today’s decision lays to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right and marks the beginning of the end of repressive gun laws that have infringed upon individual liberty and done nothing to make America safer,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.”

NSSF filed a friend of the court brief in support of the respondent, Mr. Heller.

Brady Response

From Helmke:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.
[...]
“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

B-HO treads water:

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Initial Impressions from Eugene Volokh

The Volokh Conspiracy law site is swamped, so here's Eugene Volokh's (who was cited in the ruling) initial impressions:

My basic thought after reading Justice Scalia's majority opinion is that it is relatively narrow -- in the sense that it leaves a lot for another day. It recognizes the individual right (citing, by my count, 3 articles by Eugene and one by Randy, not that we academics count such things), but does not resolve the degrees of scrutiny, does not address incorporation, and indicates (without establishing) that traditional gun restriction laws are valid.

I'm still reading...

NRA Moves on Chicago Ban; McCain Slams Chicago

The NRA has stated on Fox News that they are moving immediately against the Chicago handgun ban in the wake of the Heller decision.

The cherubs and seraphim tell me that San Francisco is also on the table.

Verified...This now up from AP:

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

From Chicago.com:

McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights

Republican Presidential Candidate Singles Out Chicago In Statement Praising Supreme Court Ruling

Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law
ARLINGTON, Va. (CBS) ― U.S. Sen. John McCain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership showed that the Chicago handgun ban has "infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called the ruling a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

Tell us what you think of the ruling and gun control.

"For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers," McCain said in a statement.

He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.