Damn it Bouchard. (Services Tax support)

Bouchard recently became my 2nd choice with Hoekstra's tax stance. Not anymore. I'm really getting dissolutioned with the gubernatorial candidates outside of Mike Cox. I like Bouchard and Hoekstra personally, and met Bouchard on several occasions. Honestly, I expected better from both.

This stance needs to be called out, and the self proclaimed "Business leaders for Michigan" need to get called out to the carpet as well for pushing this crap with the services tax. Business Leaders for Michigan is formerly "Detroit Renaissance" and it is extremely influential with the Lansing insiders. They need to feel the heat, and so to the reps.

Bouchard joined Hoekstra in support of the services tax.

From the Detroit News:

Bouchard: I'll back services tax if it's neutral

Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard told The Detroit News today he can support extending the sales tax to services -- as long as the net effect of reshaping the system is neutral or a tax cut.
Bouchard, a Republican candidate for governor, added the rationale for tax reform must be to make Michigan a better place to do business.
"We have to make ourselves more competitive with other states," Bouchard said in a wide-ranging interview with The News' editorial board. "That has to be the goal."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100617/POLITICS02/6170489/1361/Bouchard--I-ll-back-services-tax-if-it-s-neutral#ixzz0rVOzevyx

Revenue Neutral? BS. The last revenue neutral idea came from the Michigan Business Tax. That was more of a disaster than the SBT. This so called revenue neutral idea (Business leaders for Michigan plan) cuts the sales tax a measly 1/2 cent and puts a 5.5cent tax on every dollar of services. 

Bouchard's right about the jobs by small businesses, but this damn services tax will chase them all away. 

Let's contrast Bouchard and Hoekstra's statement on the services tax to the others. 

Tom George - "The door is open" 

Rick Snyder - Opposes. Even Rick Snyder opposes this. I have my problems with Rick Michigan's stances on other issues, but he gets this big one right, at least in talk.

Mike Cox made his stance on this loud and clear.

“We’re not going to put Michigan back to work by taxing working men and women who are getting haircuts or picking up their dry cleaning for job interviews.  Michigan job makers and families need a tax cut, not a massive new sales tax on services.
“An expansion of the sales tax to services would kill jobs, drive businesses out of the State and further encourage out-of-control government spending.  With the nation’s highest unemployment rate and the third worst business tax climate in the nation, that’s the last message Michigan can afford to send.

When the other candidates are mostly caving on this major issue, Mike Cox has not.  He made his stance on this a long time in the past, and it hasn't changed. No Granholm services tax.

Mike Rogers endorses Pete Hoekstra

I'm not surprised by this outside of the fact that Mike doesn't often make his primary choices publicly known. Mike Rogers and Hoekstra work together in Congress and both have been on the intelligence committee. This endorsement is noteworthy because it takes a lot for him to endorse in primaries. I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth since he's capable of speaking on his own, but I suspect that a lot of this has to do with foreign policy, even more so than he says in the press release. Foreign policy is personal to Rogers, and he does a great job there. Hoekstra is good on foreign policy issues too.

But I'm not voting for congressman or senator. I'm voting for governor of Michigan. Domestic issues are king, and while I could count on Mike Rogers or Bill Rogers in not voting to support the Granholm services tax, Pete Hoekstra came out with Democrat Andy Dillon in support of that in a debate at Country Day High School. Mike Rogers voted against the bailout. Pete Hoekstra did the first time, but when the going got tough with the pressure by McCain, Bush, Obama, Paulson, and company, he caved. Mike didn't. I like you Mike, but I have to respectfully disagree with this endorsement.

Mike Cox has my vote. He'll take a stand, even when it isn't popular. He kept his campaign promises to gun owners and even exceeded them. He made cuts in his department and lived the fiscal conservatism he preached. He stood up for Civil Rights against racial preferences when it wasn't popular. He'll also fight back, something republicans don't do enough of these days. When the democrats attack in their campaign ads, and they will, Mike Cox won't be like most Republican politicians and sit there and take. He's fight back on their level, and that is what it will take to win. No Republican has done that effectively since John Engler.

Mike Cox files constitutional challenge to Obamacare

I don't normally post press releases, but this tells the story.

Cox Files Constitutional Challenge to Federal Health Care Legislation

Contact: John Sellek or Joy Yearout 517-373-8060
Agency: Attorney General

March 22, 2010



LANSING - Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox today announced that Michigan has joined the State of Florida in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives Sunday night (H.R. 3590).



"Congress' attempt to force Michigan families to buy health insurance - or else - raises serious constitutional concerns," said Cox. "We will fight to defend the individual rights and freedoms of Michigan citizens against this radical overreach by the federal government."



Michigan joined several states in Florida's legal challenge to H.R. 3590. The lawsuit challenges Congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution to enact an individual mandate compelling Michigan citizens to purchase health insurance or face large fines.



Cox also expressed concern about the continued inclusion of the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" in legislation. The "Kickback" allows the State of Nebraska to avoid paying its fair share of an expansion of Medicaid by forcing taxpayers in states like Michigan to pick up the $100 million tab.

In December, Cox joined a bi-partisan group of Attorneys General from across the country opposing the kickback and demanding Congress remove the unfair provision or potentially face legal action.

Will it fly? I think that depends on if the fine disguised as a tax is considered a tax or a fine. Direct Taxes are unfortunately constitutional. However, it is illegal for the feds to compel states to use their resources to enforce federal legislation. If that precedent is expanded, we have a shot.

Outside of that, the only thing we can hopeful is for some of the commerce clause abuses to be curtailed and for the long dormant 10th Amendment to have some teeth again.

Latest Polls. Mike Cox leads all

When EPIC/MRA has you up by a good margin, it's good news. They usually have a democrat leaning to them.The Free Press has the news story on it

Here's the numbers.

Dem Primary:
38% - Undecided
23% - Denise Ilitch (undeclared)
9% - Gary Peters (not running)
8% - Andy Dillon
6% - Bart Stupak (out), Dan Kildee, Virg Bernero
2% - Bob Bowman, Tony Early (Who?)

GOP Primary
32% - Mike Cox
25% - Pete Hoekstra
22% - Undecided
16% - Mike Bouchard
3% - Rick Snyder
2% - Tom George

Not a lot of changes on the GOP side. It seems to be a Cox vs Hoekstra race with Bouchard a solid 3rd.

Hoekstra v Ilitch
42% - Hoekstra
35% - Ilitch

Cox v Ilitch
48% - Cox
30% - Ilitch

Dillon v Cox
47% - Cox
30% - Dillon

Dillon v Hoekstra
40% - Hoekstra
32% - Dillon

Bernero v Cox
50% - Cox
28% - Bernero

Bernero v Hoekstra
45% - Hoekstra
27% - Bernero

Mike Cox event February 6th

It's campaign season, and a lot of events early on cost money and are fundraisers. This one isn't costing a dime.

Mike Cox, who I have endorsed for governor is having a big rally February 6. This is right in the democrats own backyard as well. Southfield, Michigan. I was given details on this event through an email.

The rally will be held at Lawrence Tech University in the Atrium of the Buell Management Building. The campus is easily accessed at the intersection of West Ten Mile Road, and the M-10 (The Lodge) Freeway. The address is as follows:21000 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075

Here are some important details:
* This is a family event - so come prepared to have fun!
* Doors for the rally will open at 10:00 A.M. and the event will begin at approximately 11:00 A.M. Please arrive early!
* Plenty of free parking is available on the Lawrence Tech University Campus.
* No signs will be allowed into the event - but signs will be provided.
* Refreshments will be provided!
* Few chairs will be available at the event, with priority placed on seniors and those with disabilities.
* There will be a volunteer training session following the rally for those interested in becoming involved.

Thanks again for joining us on February 6, 2010! If you have any questions, please call 734-525-5035 or email rally@mikecox2010.com.

It looks like tickets are required however, probably due to refreshments being provided. It should be a good event.

Cox has highest lead in general election poll (45% Cox, 30% Cherry)

Now this is real early, but the results are so far promising. EPIC/MRA, a democrat leaning polling firm, has all GOP candidates leading Cherry in the General election except Rick Snyder. The taps were posted by Wood TV in Grand Rapids. Some interesting results.

Direction (US).
35% - Right Direction
58% - Wrong Direction

Direction (Michigan)
17% - Right Direction
75% - Wrong Direction

Democrat Primary:
33% - John Cherry
5% - Alma Wheeler Smith
3% - George Perles (Yes, that Perles)
3% - Don Williamson
2% - John Freeman
54% - Undecided

Republican Primary:
29% - Pete Hoekstra
28% - Mike Cox
14% - Mike Bouchard
3% - Rick Snyder
2% - Tom George
24% Undecided.

Positive/Negative Obama
48% - Positive
51% - Negative

Positive/Negative Granholm
33% - Positive
66% - Negative

Matchups:

45% Cox
30% Cherry
25% Undecided

40% Hoekstra
33% Cherry
27% Undecided

39% Bouchard
31% Cherry
30% Undecided

34% Cherry
32% Snyder
34% Undecided

Once again. This is a democrat leaning polling firm. This isn't Strategic Vision. This isn't even Mitchell. From this firm, Cox leads by 15, and the rest have leads of at least 7 outside of Rick Snyder. The results are good if you are not a democrat or Rick Snyder. The problem with Cherry is that he's Michigan's version of Al Gore in a bad economy. After eight years of an administration, there's usually fatigue. Reagan was the exception, and the VP Bush won in 1988. Gore had a good economy, and he still couldn't win because he turned into a gun grabber when he went national. Dick Cheney didn't run in 2008, but probably would have done no different than McCain.

Posthumus could have won with a little more help as the 12% expected loss turned into 4%. Still wasn't a win. Engler broke the 8 year jinx with a third term however. Milliken's first choice lost in the primary after 12 years. Blanchard himself lost when he wanted a 3rd term. After 8 years, usually it's trouble.

And unless things change in the next year, it's big trouble for Granholm/Cherry. Cherry isn't following Clinton who had a good rep thanks to the 1994 Republicans and their work on the economy. Cherry's following the Matt Millen of governors.

Mike Cox for governor

It's been almost ten years since we had a good governor. Pre-2000 John Engler. The last eight years of Granholm has been a disaster. For most of those eight years, she was able to get everything she wanted due to either mostly democrat control, or willing Republicans who fiscally acted too much like democrats (Rick Johnson and Ken Sikkema with their support for tax shifts, fee increases, and high spending). Yes, there is blame on all sides to a degree for the past eight years and economic disaster, but the common factors in the recent problems of this state are Granholm, Cherry, Mark Schauer, Gretchen Whitmer, and Andy Dillon.

A lot of people are running for governor this term.

On the democrat side we have as follows:

John Cherry. I actually met Cherry a couple of times at gun rights events. Personally, I like the guy, and he was generally pro-2a before it was cool, so I'll give him a little credit. However, I couldn't disagree with him more on economic policies right now. Granholm/Cherry's policies are bad news for this state which is moving towards 20% unemployment.

John Freeman - Former Oakland County State Rep from Madison Heights near Royal Oak. I don't know much about this guy.

George Perles. Thanks to the tussle between Perles and DiBaggio, we got probation, rough times in the early 90's right after a Big 10 title, and a lawsuit. Perles was a good coach, but not good with the double duty of AD and coach at the same time.

Alma Wheeler Smith - Current state rep, former State Senator and Lt Governor Candidate (running with Bonior). Planned Parenthood's best friend. Also a major supporter of anti-2nd Amendment measures, tax increases, and big spending, as you would expect from an Ann Arbor/Ypsi area democrat.

Don Williamson - You gotta be kidding. He's the worst choice out of anyone running. He did not do Flint any favors.

On the GOP side:

Mike Bouchard - Bouchard is a good guy who should be in the US Senate right now. That's the problem, he SHOULD be in the senate, but he was clobbered against Stabenow in 06 and could not win his home county. Not all of that is his fault as he had Jack and Squat for support from NRSC, but he should have at least gotten it within 10%. 58%-42%? Can he get that extra 8%? I don't know. I do think he should instead run against Gary Peters in the 9th district, which would be a better matchup. I'd back Bouchard for that seat. Bouchard for Congress, not governor.

Tom George - State Senator from Kalamazoo. He's a more moderate (not liberal or RINO, actual moderate) candidate who was a state rep and senator in Kalamazoo county. He's won in tough areas, but it not well known statewide.

Pete Hoekstra - Congressman representing the Lake Michigan shoreline. Hoekstra's from Ottawa County, and is one of the better congressman from this state. I do worry however about anyone from Washington winning statewide, and Hoekstra has one vote that has left a real nasty taste in my mouth. The bailout. The banks bailout. Hoekstra voted against the bailout the first time, but when push came to shove on that second vote, he flipped. That one hurts, and I think he will be beaten over the head for that bailout vote.

Tim Rujan. I never heard of him before his announcement. He's up from the thumb in Huron County. He says some good things to the website, and I think can bring some ideas to the debates. Name recognition is his biggest obstacle.

Rick Snyder. There's only one republican running that I am really against, and that's Snyder. The "non-politician" who gives the most political answers in his statements and answers to question. If Snyder is the nominee, 57-40% loss, and Cherry is governor. Mark it down. I'll have another post on this guy soon. Right Michigan has several threads about Snyder. I commended on Snyder here. Gateway has its outsourcing issues as well.

That leaves Mike Cox. I first heard of him in 2001. I was actually skeptical of him at first because he is from Wayne County and worked at the time for Mike Duggan. As someone active in the 2nd Amendment movement, there's nobody that was worse than Duggan. At the time, Cox was running against an establishment backed opponent. Cox went and campaigned in our area several times and I talked with him on several occasions. I then backed him for AG after he promised CPL reciprocity with other states in a clear manner without politicalese statements. Cox won by 5000 votes in an upset. Within a few months, Cox kept his promise. Since then, he's not only continued to kept his promise, but came through with an amicus brief several times in support for the 2nd Amendment. While it is great that he's pro-2nd Amendment, what is MORE importantly is that he made a clear promise, kept it, and even when above and beyond what he promised.

Mike Cox is not afraid to take a stand, no matter what the establishment thinks. When it came to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative banning government sponsored racial preferences, the political class in both parties was against it or silent. Mike Cox supported it. Mike Cox is active in taking a stand against the runaway tax and spending. He was the only candidate to take a no tax pledge. He has consistently been pro-life. He's stood up to the giant bureaucracy, Blue Cross.

Mike Cox is a winner. He won statewide twice, by 5000 votes in 02 against a strong candidate in Gary Peters, and despite the 2006 disaster for Republicans statewide and nationally, he won again, this time, by 330,000+ votes. He only lost Alger, Genesee, Gogebic, Ingham (barely), Iron, Marquette, Ontonagon, Schoolcraft, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. He won Oakland. Big. He won Macomb. Big. More impressively, he won Kalamazoo, Bay, Saginaw, Alpena, and Muskegon counties. All those lean democrat. Some are blue collar union areas, and Kalamazoo is social liberal and university area. He won both types of areas.

Because of his promises kept, political philosophy on my major issues, and his history of winning statewide elections, I will be voting for Mike Cox in the 2010 primary election.

(Disclaimer - I'm speaking only for myself and not any organization of which I have ties or am in a position of leadership.)

Mike Cox in Wall Street Journal on 2nd Amendment

Mike Cox has long been a friend of the 2nd Amendment. He made some major promises as a candidate for Attorney General regarding reciprocity on CPL permits. He kept his promise there to gun owners, and went further with his AG opinion on class III firearms.

The main argument used is that "Right of the People" means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment as it does in the rest of the constitution

From the WSJ

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right--that all Americans enjoy--or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

The amendment reads: "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 right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose--that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia--it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia--that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.





To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.
The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people."

Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to "keep and bear arms." Before the conjunction "and" there is a right to "keep," meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.

Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then-Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a "bill of rights," to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.

(Snip)

The rest of it is a good read as well and I recommend it, and thank you Mike for standing up for our constitutional rights.

More budget updates

The battle of attrition is still going on.

First, I got this in an email forwarded to me. An excerpt of the Political Diary in the Wall Street Journal.

GOP's Future at Stake in Michigan Fight

Michigan's Republican Party is in the midst of an internal skirmish over, of all issues, taxes. The infighting came to public light in recent weeks when certain establishment-oriented party insiders began complaining that the state party chairman, Saul Anuzis, was sounding a message that's "too" anti-tax.

The state now faces a $1.8 billion deficit and Mr. Anuzis sensibly wants that wiped out by cutting a bloated state budget, not tax hikes, but some Republicans in the legislature want to strike a deal with pro-tax Governor Jennifer Granholm. Mr. Anuzis' persistent proclamations against higher taxes have caused grumbling among party moderates, who complain he's "making it more difficult to work out a deal to resolve Michigan's nagging budget deficit," as the Detroit News recently reported. The moderates insist that it's inappropriate for a party chair to dictate the party's policy to elected officials.

Conservatives, for their part, can't fathom why Mr. Anuzis' behavior has come under attack in his own party. They fear it means liberal Republicans in Lansing are signaling their readiness to cut a budget deal with pro-tax Democrats at a time, peculiarly, when Democrats seem disposed to shoot themselves in the head on the budget. House Democratic Speaker Andy Dillon has become so frustrated with the refusal of Senate Republicans to negotiate on taxes that he just announced: "We are going to act alone." He wants to raise income and/or sales taxes in the state.

That budget solution would be an economic catastrophe for a state that already has among the nation's highest unemployment rates and highest number of mortgage foreclosures (despite having missed out on the housing boom that led to mortgage excesses in other parts of the country). Why Republicans would want their fingerprints on this economic suicide pact is a mystery to the conservative activists I interviewed in the state.

Democrats have been gaining electoral ground in this national battleground state in recent years, but today's tax fight could be a pivotal moment to define the differences between the two parties. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says that Mr. Anuzis is a "party chair worthy of cheering." And Mr. Anuzis isn't backing down. "We have to hold the line on no new taxes," he tells me. By giving voters a real choice between lower taxes and more spending, Mr. Anuzis is doing exactly the right thing to bring Republicans back to majority status in Michigan.

-- Stephen Moore

So far so good, the GOP has stayed strong. What's right for the state is also right for our party in this case. No more taxes! Re-establish our fiscal conservative bonafides in our brand image, and move away from the big spending jokers who killed us in 2004 statewide, and 2006 on a state and national level.


Also, Right Michigan reports that Andy Dillon took some time off after the lockdown ended to go golfing at Oak Pointe with some lobbyists. I wish I knew about it and was able to get up there to welcome him with my camera. "Out golfing with lobbyists while Michigan burns." BTW - Who let that joker into Livingston County, anyway?

Few changes. The dems still aren't united on this tax increase. Mike Simpson of Jackson County voted for the tax before not voting for it. The Matt Millen of governors is still running her mouth pushing for a tax increase. Andy Dillon is still the Marty Morningwig to Granholm's Millen.

And in other news, our AG Mike Cox resigned as co-chair from John McCain's campaign. Interesting development this close to our Mackinac Conference.

DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional - Second Amendment Victory in Washington D.C.!!!!

UPDATE - My mistake. Griffith was GW Bush appointee. Henderson was GHWB appointee.

Big news out of the US Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Drudge Report has the PDF file on it.

Thumbs up for the attorneys on a big victory. Alan Gura in arguements and Robert A. Levy and Clark M. Neily, III on the briefs.

The following AG's or their office Supported us. Let's remember that election time. Mike Cox in particular came through for gun owners once again.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of State of Texas, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Troy King,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of State of
Alabama, Mike Beebe, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Arkansas, John W. Suthers, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Colorado,
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Georgia,
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of
the State of Michigan, Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of Minnesota, Jon Bruning,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of North Dakota, Jim Petro,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Ohio, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Utah, and Patrick J. Crank, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Wyoming,
were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas, et. al. in
support of appellants.

Amicus briefs:
Second Amendment Foundation
Congress of Racial Equality
NRA
ACRU

For the other side:

Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, Office of Attorney General
for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellees.
With him on the brief were Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney
General, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Solicitor General, and Lutz
Alexander Prager, Assistant Attorney General.

Ernest McGill, pro se, was on the brief for amicus curiae
Ernest McGill in support of appellees.
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Glenn S. Kaplan,
Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence G. Walden, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Idaho, J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of the State of Maryland, Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,
Attorney General’s Office of the State of New Jersey, were on
the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et
al. in support of appellees. John Hogrogian, Attorney,
Corporation Counsel's Office of City of New York, and Benna
R. Solomon, Attorney, Corporation Counsel of the City of
Chicago, entered appearances.
Andrew L. Frey, David M. Gossett, Danny Y. Chou, Deputy
City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney of the City and
County of San Francisco, and John A. Valentine, were on the
brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, et al. in support of appellees. Eric J. Mogilnicki
entered an appearance.

I have one question. How the hell can the AG for IDAHO argue for the DC gun ban. I hope 2a groups remember him and help the voters send him home for his opposition to freedom.

UPDATE - I found that Idaho's AG withdrew their brief awhile back.

Judges Laurence Silberman wrote the court's opinion, joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. The decision was from the "Individual Rights" model of the 2nd Amendment. It is a very well written opinion, throughly backed up with facts, original intent, and case law precident. Judge Karen Henderson dissented on two grouds, the "Collective Right" model and on the fact DC is not a state. Judge Silberman was a Reagan appointee. Judge Griffith was a George W Bush nominee. Judge Henderson was a George HW Bush appointee.

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the
district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the
District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second
Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment
(“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”) does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

This case may soon go to the Supreme Court, or it could be heard by a full panel of the DC Circuit. It is far from over, but it is a good step forward for freedom.