SAFR-PAC ratings are released, as is some NRA ratings

I'm wearing a non-partisan for this post. The ratings for the Shooters Alliance for Firearms Rights (SAFR-PAC) has released their ratings for the 2010 primary. Some of the endorsements are out and have been in the press releases, most notably Mike Cox. Cox got the endorsement because of his record. That's not an attack on Bouchard or George (The others wern't considered because of no surveys) who have good records, but it was a case of good vs best on this issue. There is a typo that needs to be fixed. Tim Walberg was endorsed in the primary for 7th District congress.

I did not grade any surveys, records, or statements from any district where I have a client. I stayed out of those decisions due to conflicts of interest. That includes the 22nd District here in Livingston County.

SAFR-PAC is nonpartisan. It does not even ask party affiliation on its surveys and the only time it matters is in primaries where there is one democrat and one republican both worthy of an endorsement. This happened in a couple of races, most notably the 1st congressional, where Jason Allen and Gary McDowell both received endorsements in their primary, and in the 31st Senate District where both Jeff Mayes and Mike Green have received endorsements in the primary. McDowell and Mayes are unopposed, but those will be automatic general election endorsements if Allen and Green don't win. More and more democrats have received acceptable ratings and endorsements than in the past, and a lot of that has to do with the votes taken, and committee decisions. Believe it or not, Andy Dillon and Joel Sheltrown on natural resources did more for gun owners than the senate. Note to Republicans. Don't take gun owners for granted, especially on the state level. Virg Bernero, Steve Bieda and the Levin brothers are beyond unacceptable, but not all are like them.

If we get a matchup say between Dillon and Rick Michigan, I think there will be a large number of defections on this issue. Rick Michigan was given an unknown rating. It's very accurate, and that goes for most issues, outside of life and outsourcing. We know where he stands there, and it isn't good.

Close to home, Joe Hune and Cindy Denby have been endorsed. Bill Rogers received an acceptable rating. Paul Rogers received a mixed rating on his survey, and Chuck Fellows received an unacceptable rating (which means he supports more gun control). James Delcamp and Garry Post didn't turn in surveys. Paul Rogers was even more harshly graded by the NRA and got a D which translates to an unacceptable rating with SAFR-PAC. Ouch. Don't blame my ties to Joe for that one (or either of them really - since I didn't grade Paul))

The NRA ratings are similar, but there is one major difference. The NRA endorsed Fred Upton. SAFR-PAC rated him mixed (about equivalent to a C) and endorsed Jack Hoogendyk. Casperson was endorsed by the NRA, while SAFR-PAC solely endorsed Mike Lahti. Upton had a large number of bad votes in the past and his record with SAFR reflects that. It's gotten better, and that's why it was a mixed and not unacceptable rating, but it's not good enough for acceptable.

Interesting enough, gun control is not always a partisan issue in Michigan, and not just up North. The worst survey of anybody was by a Republican on the west side of the state. I won't say who, the NRA also rated him an F, and we rated him unacceptable. That's a good enough reference for someone that looks hard enough to figure out. This is particularly true in West Michigan, where there are more anti-gun republican politicians than one cares to admit. It's gotten better, but Schwarz, Byl, Steil Sr, Gast, Hollinrake, and Jellema all came from there.

The Second Amendment protects the rest, and those that don't support that safeguard are unworthy of our votes.

Latest on McDonald case (NRA vs Gura)

I found this interesting. Orin Kerr of the Volokh blog, posted this. He's not a fan of Alan Gura's argument on the privileges and immunities clause regarding the 2nd Amendment, so keep that in mind.

The Blog of Legal Times notes that the Supreme Court granted the NRA’s contested motion for oral argument time in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA had asked for argument time to make sure the Due Process arguments were fully made, in light of the fact that McDonald’s counsel Alan Gura had focused so heavily on the Privileges or Immunities argument. Gura had opposed the motion on the ground that it was his case and it would be extremely unusual to grant divided time in such circumstances. Paul Clement, former SG, will argue for the NRA.

We can’t read too much into the Court’s decision to divide argument time, but I tend to see it as somewhat supporting my theory that the grant in McDonald on both PorI and Due Process was not a sign the Court wants to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. As I have written before, the Petitioner’s brief in McDonald is extremely unusual: It’s asking for a revolution in constitutional law, with the stakes of that particular case almost an afterthought to the brief. If the Court was on board the revolution, as most libertarian bloggers seem to think, presumably the Justices wouldn’t carve away some of the precious 30 minutes needed to make the case for the revolution for the much more humdrum and precedent-based argument featured in the NRA brief. On the other hand, if the Justices just want to decide the case before them, and see a revolution as unlikely, then it makes sense to make sure Paul Clement is there to focus on the narrower and more direct arguments for incorporation.

The Legal Times  has the original story. Chicago Gun Case.com has all the filed briefs.

I recently posted updates on the Chicago Case on January 8th and December 9th. Those should be read as background, along with the briefs. I addressed the Slaughterhouse case in the December 9th writing.

There's a little more this. Alan Gura is obviously a major supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but he is not a big fan of the NRA. He took offense at the NRA's charge that he wouldn't argue due process effectively. That's not the first battle he's had with the NRA, which is why I think he took the shot at Clement's (now the NRA attorney) argument in Dc v Heller.

Back in the DC v Heller case, the NRA was afraid they would lose and there were major arguments about that case. Gura did win, and apparently after the case went to SCOTUS, some things were patched up. Did old wounds open up here with the NRA taking 10 minutes of Gura's time?

From Legal Times:

On the pro-gun-rights side those worries, along with long-simmering rivalries, have relegated the National Rifle Association to the sidelines in a case that could fulfill its most fervent dream: a declaration by the Court that the convoluted wording of the Second Amendment ensures an individual's right to bear arms, rather than a collective right of state militias. If the right-leaning Roberts Court embraces that view, regulating firearm possession and use would become harder, though not impossible.
Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim.
Even after the D.C. Circuit ruled in March, says Gura, the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. "The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case, but we went ahead anyway," says Gura, a name partner in the firm of Gura & Possessky. "It's not their case, and they are somewhat territorial."
FRIENDLY FIRE
Gura insists that if the high court grants review, he will argue the case himself and won't defer to NRA lawyers, such as Stephen Halbrook, who have Supreme Court experience. "My decisions in the case have been the correct decisions. That's why I am arguing and he's not."
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam denies his group sought to sabotage Gura's case: "Our intent to file an amicus brief if the case progresses speaks for itself." He also noted that the NRA filed a brief supporting Gura with the circuit court.
Yet Charles Cooper of D.C.'s Cooper & Kirk acknowledges that when he reviewed the Heller case at an earlier stage for the NRA, "my concern was then, as it is now, whether our [individual rights] theory of the Second Amendment would command a majority of the Supreme Court." Even with recent changes in the composition of the Court, says Cooper, "that is still not as clear as I would like it to be, though I am much more calm." Nonetheless, Cooper says, if the high court declines to take up the D.C. case and lets the D.C. Circuit ruling stand, "that's not going to disappoint me."
Cooper's reluctance is based on legal strategy, but others say the NRA has less lofty reasons for not wanting the Supreme Court to decide what the Second Amendment really means. "The NRA would lose its loudest fund-raising drum if this question is answered," says Carl Bogus, a leading scholar who favors the militia rights view of the amendment.

The NRA is cautious, sometimes way to a fault. I think their caution pushed them in DC, and it also in this case pushed them to put all their eggs in the due process basket instead of going for the 120+year old root cause of the problems. Presser, Cruikshank, and Slaughter-house.


I understand what the NRA did, but it's not their case that's being heard. It's McDonald's case, and I don't like seeing the argument get watered down. I hope this doesn't cost us.

NRA endorses McCain

I saw this coming as soon as it was a McCain v Obama race. The NRA is if nothing else, pragmatic. I don't agree with them giving McCain a flat out endorsement, although I agree with their "Defeat Obama" campaign. This isn't the Joe Schwarz endorsement which was pitiful of a clear anti vs clear pro. This election here is a leans our way vs the worst ever. It was a pragmatic pick from a pragmatic organization. Among gun organizations in Michigan, you have NRA's pragmatism sometimes to a fault, GOA's ideologues sometimes to a fault, and SAFR being at IMO, the rights spot in-between. MCRGO is just a joke and has been since June of 2002. American Hunters and Shooters Association is a fraudulent group that is a gun control organization committing astroturf in an attempt to look pro-gun and split gunowners away from voting against gun grabbers like Obama. Look up Ray Schoenke on my previous blog posts and you'll see what they are really about.

McCain's been good on this issue lately, signing the amicus brief regarding the DC Gun ban and voting against the ugly gun ban. He hasn't been perfect and had that bad stretch in the early 2000's on this issue, most likely IMO because of a spat he had with the NRA quasi-endorsing Bush in the primary in 2000. With their man Bill Richardson (from what I've heard he was their top choice) losing the democrat primary, and giving us the choices we have, it clear who is better than the other guy.

GOA on the other hand doesn't care and supports nobody at all. Both are equally bad to them.

SAFR's PAC (Bipartisan, I was the Republican and there was an active Democratic Party member on the PAC as well) graded McCain a "mixed" rating and Obama an unacceptable rating. SAFR's PAC has never endorsed a mixed rating candidate for president, and this year was no exception. If someone sees the candidate list, it is obvious who is better, but there's a difference between "better than the other guy" and an "endorsement."

From a partisan standpoint, the NRA's endorsement was great. From a gun rights standpoint, I can see the argument, I'd rather see a McCain B- (which would be an accurate grade, up from his C before thanks to a couple of very good votes recently) and Obama F- grade instead of giving McCain the endorsement from a gun rights credibility standpoint. They still should go with a continuation of the Defeat Obama campaign. I understand the pragmatism here as McCain's no Joe Schwarz, but I don't like lowering standards either.

One thing all gun rights organizations agree on however. Mr. Joyce Foundation Obama hates the 2nd Amendment and would ban everything if he had the chance. Let's not let him do it. Defend freedom and defeat Obama.

Annenberg Factcheck's LIES on Obama's gun record

There's nothing unbiased about so called "Factcheck." The media loves to haul it out as a truth arbiter, but all the group does is call itself "factcheck" and set itself up as the authority on political ads. When it comes to the gun issue, they let their biases cloud the way of judgment. Much of this is the same stuff I debunked against the Washington Post (on record supporting a total gun ban). which Obama used as a source when he acted like the KGB in threatening to go after the FCC license of radio stations who aired the campaign ad.

First off, "factcheck" is "Annenberg Factcheck." Obama got his political start with terrorist Bill Ayers as part of Chicago's Annenberg Challenge. Both "Factcheck" and Annenberg Challenge have the same funders, the Annenberg Foundation. Annenberg Foundation also Gave $100,000 to the gun grabbers. Money talks, BS walks.

There's 'factcheck's' link on the NRA's target of Obama

There's the NRA's Response

I didn't even read it after the part of Annenberg funding Brady.

Factcheck calls this false: - NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"

The truth - Chicago has a total gun ban. Obama in his vote supporting prosecuting those who used a firearm in their home as self defense in those gun ban areas.

Factcheck calls this false: - NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"

The Truth - Ted Kennedy's own words debunk this claim.

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.

Police vests are made for pistol rounds. The .30-30 is a low powered round today almost exclusively used for hunting. The other round targeted, the .223 (used to hunt varmints) is in some places ILLEGAL for deer hunting since it is NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH. Hunters do not want to wound deer. Kennedy said in his speech that it wasn't for "hunting", and factcheck takes his word for it despite him contradicting himself by wanting to ban .30-30 ammunication.

Factcheck calls this false - "NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns"

The Politico Questionaire? Factcheck simply takes Obama's word that questionaire was a mistake.

Factcheck calls this misleading - "NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"

Obama supports that on pistols. Last I checked, that's a firearm.

Factcheck concedes this is true - NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

They call this "partially true" - "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"

They said it was true but didn't like the "millions" part.

Factcheck called this "unsupported" - NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment"

Obama voted against Scalia and even Justice Roberts.

Factcheck called these two "uncertain" - NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America"

That was based on a Chicago Defender article. I didn't see it, so I can't comment, but Factcheck was going to only take Obama's word on that.

I'm glad to see the NRA going after so called "Factcheck." As I said about the Washington Post. Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?

Obama sends goon squads to censor the truth about his gun record

I believe in Godwin's law, so I won't use the terms Nazi or Fascist here, but Obama's camp supports pissing on the first amendment as he does the second amendment. This is a typical page from the Chicago/Axelrod/Mayor Daley school of Machine Politics. Obama doesn't like the NRA ads, so he pushes to censor them. Look out NRA, you may wake up next to a stallion head next to you tomorrow morning.....

This is the NRA ad that Obama's goons wants to censor.

Politico has the source. Most of this was a letter from the NRA in response, so I'll post the whole thing here so I can disect this point by point. Normally, I post excepts. If politico or Ben Smith has a problem with the full posting, I'll adjust it afterward.

The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.

"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

I know the bill in contention very well, as well as the context behind it, so the NRA not only is accurate, but in this case, the context of the ad is more inflammatory than the bill itselt. Most who know me know that I refer to one of the ammo bans as the "30-30 ban." That's the bill. I'll get to that later. Back to the politico:

The ad, "Hunter," conflates Obama's anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer's letter refers.

The Washington Post? Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.

Good. Be prepared to take out Obama/Daley's goons.

MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130
TO: Station Managers

FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association

DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 295-xxxx if you have any questions. Thank you.

Be prepared. Here's the rebuttals.

Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads
Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.
Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.

Chicago Defender, December 13 1999. I can't get there, but it is consistent with his atrocious record.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.

The NRA is right on this. There were two IDENTICAL Bills. One was in 2004, before Obama was senator. The other was in 2005. The 2004 bill was S AMDT 2619 to S1805. The 2005 bill wasn S Amdt 1615 to S397. The Language of both bills is as follows:

SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

What did Mr. Kennedy have in mind? He explained it in 2004

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.

The .30-30 Winchester is the basic hunting round. .30-30 lever action. It is a mid level ammunition. Another target in Kennedy's comments it the less powerful .223, which is used in the AR-15. If this bill was passed, the Attorney General can unilaterially ban the .223 and .30-30.

As far as police vests go, they are supposed to protect them from pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Just about any non pistol ammunition I have is "armor piercing", because most of my rounds are rifle rounds. Slugs? There's some real power there. 30-06? That's a lot more powerful than the .30-30 and is a hunting round.

Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.


Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.

Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.

I haven't followed the Illinois .50 caliber gun ban, but almost all shotgun rounds are .50 caliber or higher. I'm going my memory, but I think by measurement, the calibler of your basic Mossberg 500 12 gauge is "72 caliber."

But that just covers the beginning of Obama's distain of the 2nd Amendment. I covered it all when the Elmer Fudds at AHSA endorsed him. From April 18, 2008

So what is Obama's record on the 2nd Amendment.

First off, he was a former Board member of the notorious Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is the main funder of gun grabbing organizations in the US. They fund groups such as VPC which supports a total ban. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these astroturf organizations.

http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-hates-civil-rights-and.html - I commented on one of his puff pieces here. He supports "Ballistic prints" which don't do anything for crimes. He supposed the so called "assault weapons" ban.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009664 - He voted present on another nasty bill.

He voted to ban almost all centerfire ammunition - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217

He voted to support frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactuers. - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml - And this exposes his State Senatorial record.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves. Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank." On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

He supports guns for the important people, but not us. That's Obama's elitism for you. That fits the views of the Elmer Fudd organization that is supporting him as well. But wait, there's even more from Politico.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 1

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 2

On guns...TOTAL BAN!

Now his aids tried to cover for him and say that wasn't his work. BS. Buck stops at the top. Politico called that as well.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Is it really surprising that an organization headed by two, and formerly three gun grabbers, would back a gun grabber? Not really. The good news is that most of us know what AHSA is about, and no amount of photo ops are going to change that. It's the record that counts, and the records of Obama, Schoenke, Ricker, and Rosenthal show that none of them are friends of the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, if I had that record, I'd want to shut up my opposition too. However, we have a thing called the first Amendment, and from someone who actually taught constitutional law, he should know better. Either he's an idiot who doesn't know it or more likely, doesn't give a damn.

However, we do, and we will make sure this jackass loses, so we can protect our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

NRA to expose gun grabber Obama

The NRA has a fairly lenient policy when it comes to guns. You can screw up a couple of times and still get a good rating. Even multiple times if you vote right on a couple of major bills, like Joe Schwarz did. The Cult of Obama's record is horrific however, and the NRA needs to kick Jim Jones' ass. He's a con man, but it's for this con job to be exposed.

From Politico

“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico.

That is the number one key. Obama voted against John Roberts. Obama voted against Samuel Alito. Those two made the difference in that decision. Now what did Obama say about SCOTUS nominees?

From MSNBC, hardly a conservative site.

Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

The Supreme Court justice's job is simple. It is to read the Constitution, read the law, and interpret it. Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to be legislative, or to even care what the criteria is. The other criteria is more important at Circuit Court level when it is time to dole out sentencing.

Back to the Politico article:

Since 2000, Democrats have made a conscious decision to avoid alienating gun owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts, as many in the party believe a NRA-stoked backlash cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee , as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, in the 2000 presidential election. In the days leading up to Election Day four years ago, Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) even went so far as to symbolically court gun owners, donning camouflage and hoisting a 12-gauge in what turned out to be a goose hunt in more ways than one.

The democrats haven't changed. While you have a few friendlies in rural and some social conservative and economic populist areas, along with a few schitzo types like Harry Reid and Pat Leahy who can go either way, most in congress and leadership are staunchly anti. Pelosi, Schumer, Conyers, Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Lautenberg, Boxer, and Feinstein for starters. They still run the show. What has changed is that these same people know that gun grabbing is a loser and will give politispeak in an attempt not to scare gun owners while they continue to vote anti-rights.

“Sen. Obama has always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms and will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, hunters and sportsmen as president,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Sen. Obama also believes that we can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”

That's a pile of crap. I'm not drinking your flavor-aid, Jim, I mean Barack. First off son, Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. Secondly, he never signed the amicus brief supporting the end of the DC ban (McCain who isn't perfect, did). Jim Jones voted in 2005 or 2006 (ban on firearms lawsuits amendment) to give the attorney general power to ban all rifle centerfire ammunition that may possibly penetrate a vest (That's all of them except a .22 as vests protect against pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Obama also supported junk lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. As a state senator he voted against supporting immunity for those who defended themselves in their homes with a firearm. Lastly, as a candidate for state senator he supported a total ban - like the one challenged in court right now in Chicago.

As far as the DC gun ban goes, Obama has had more positions on this issue than the guests on the Maury Povich or Jerry Springer shows. Besides that questionaire he filled out supporting a handgun ban, there's these statements.

February 15th in Milwaukee:

There's been a longstanding argument among constitutional scholars about whether the Second Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation....I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws...The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C. I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.

Bans are not common sense regulations, and unless you are real stupid for a constitutional law professor, you know what "Right of the people" means. I don't think he's stupid, and is instead trying to deceive us. Is this a new kind of politics? No, Obama the con man gives us the same ole song and dance, straight from the Mark Mellman (dem strategist) playbook on gun issues.

If Obama replaces any of the five justices who backed Heller, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye in a legal sense, and we'll just have to become outlaws instead.

Interesting

The Mackinac Conference is this weekend, so is an NRA event. What's interesting is who is speaking at the NRA event. From the Atlantic Monthly and politico:

An NRA spokesman tells me that ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a prominent advocate for gun control when he was mayor of New York City, will be among those presidential candidates who speak to before the NRA's Celebration of American Values convention in Washington Friday.

The NRA members know Giuliani's record well, and many Republicans believe that Giuliani's past support for tough gun laws will prove deadly.

But Giuliani is signing a different tune these days.

Also attending:

Sen. Fred Thompson, Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Democrat Bill Richardson will speak to the NRA via videotape, along with Rep. Duncan Hunter and Gov. Mitt Romney

I can see Richardson, Hunter, Thompson, and Huckabee there. Romney signed a compromise ugly gun ban in Massachusetts. McCain tried to ban gun shows (although he IS against the ugly gun ban). But Guliani? Besides his push for stricter gun laws, this guy initiated frivolous lawsuits paid for by tax money, against gun manufacturers. I'd love to be there piping up with a few questions about that after his speech. It'll be interesting to see how he's received there.

Gun bill passes house HR2640

Gun legislation passed the house today by voice vote. It was a compromise bill by John Dingell and Carolyn McCarthy - HR 2640.

The NRA and GOA were split on this bill. I'm going to say "We report, you decide." If it is good or not.

First - The NRA's side of the story

The new version of the NICS Improvement Act (H.R. 2640) would require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for use in NICS. It would also provide financial incentives to states to do the same, by rewarding states that provide records to NICS and penalizing those that refuse to do so over an extended period of time.

Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would “prohibit” thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only enforce current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.

The following are the key provisions of H.R. 2640, introduced by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), which passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote on June 13, 2007.

Key Provisions of H.R. 2640

H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
For example, NICS currently accepts Veterans' Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an “adjudicated mental defective” where there was no “adjudication” at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights.
H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments (such as the VA) to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” The bill allows de novo judicial review when an agency denies relief--that is, the court would look at the application on its merits, rather than deferring to the agency's earlier decision.
As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed. Criminal records can be expunged or pardoned, but mental records cannot.
While BATFE used to have the ability to accept applications to remove individuals' prohibited status, appropriations riders every year since 1992 have barred it from doing so. Allowing this process through H.R. 2640 would be an improvement over the current law.
Under H.R. 2640, even if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency, the person would have an opportunity to correct the error--either through the agency or in court.

H.R. 2640 would prevent reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

H.R. 2640 would also make clear that if a federal adjudication or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a person from possessing or receiving firearms under the Gun Control Act.
This actually restores the person's rights, as well as deleting the record from NICS--a significant improvement over current law.

States that receive funding would also need to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments. State relief programs would have to provide for de novo judicial review, as in the federal programs.
Relief granted by a state program would remove the federal prohibition on the person possessing or receiving a firearm under the Gun Control Act--again, an improvement over current law.
Many states have processes for temporary emergency commitments that allow a short-term commitment based only on affidavits from police, doctors or family members, without opportunity for a hearing. Because federal law prohibits gun possession by a person who “has been” committed, a person committed under such a process can't possess a gun even after full release from the temporary order. By requiring participating states to have a relief program that actually removes the disability, H.R. 2640 would be a significant improvement over current law.

The legislation would improve the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report people such as Virginia Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho--that is, people who were found after a full court hearing to be a danger to themselves or others, but not reported to NICS due to lack of funding or contrary state laws.

The legislation requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

The legislation prohibits federal fees for NICS checks. Under current law, only annual appropriations riders prohibit the FBI from trying to impose fees by regulation (as the Clinton Administration proposed in 1998). A permanent ban on such a “gun tax” has been an NRA priority for nearly a decade.

The legislation requires an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds already spent for criminal history improvements. There has only been limited documentation of how hundreds of millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs such as automated fingerprint systems.
Voluntary Psychological Treatment

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

And then - GOA

While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation.

The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech.

So what's going on?

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records."

Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.

After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system.

Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.

And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards?

One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa.

The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans.

Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.

GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing.

GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.

So which side do you believe? Thomas has the bill itself. I've been more of a GOA guy myself, especially with the unintended consequences I've seen with the Patriot Act and other bad federal bills and the way they become interpreted.

More on the Parker v DC case (Second Amendment)

Gura and Possessky, The law firm for the successful appellants in the DC gun ban case posted all of the public documents pertaining to this case. They posted some background. This is a gold mine of information that all legal begals and 2nd Amendment advocates should read. All the legal briefs, letters, and decisions at both the District and Appellate level involved in this case are posted online at Gura and Possessky's web site.

My opinion of the NRA dropped dramaticly. Why? Well, I'll let Alan Gura explain one with the overview of the litigation.

(snip)
Before the court could rule in our case, the National Rifle Association sponsored a copycat lawsuit entitled Seegars v. Ashcroft (subsequently Gonzales), and immediately sought to have their lawsuit joined with ours. The NRA had tried to dissuade the filing of Parker. Having failed in that effort, they lobbied unsuccessfully to alter our litigation strategy. Seegars was designed to raise issues we had rejected in our case, in an attempt to have the courts avoid interpretation of the Second Amendment. Seegars counsel was an attorney who had been involved in the early stages of our case, but who was not retained to proceed with us much further.

It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years, but suddenly sponsored a copycat action immediately upon our having filed suit. We successfully defeated the NRA’s attempt to use Seegars as a vehicle to muscle in on our litigation. The District Court agreed with us that the behavior of Seegars counsel raised substantial ethical and attorney-client issues that would delay and complicate the litigation. Unfortunately, he was not disqualified from continuing to work on the Seegars matter as we had requested, and each case proceeded independently, on separate tracks before separate judges.

Meanwhile, the court excused the defendants in our case from compliance with their deadlines, allowing them generous extensions of time to file their pleadings, and allowed participation by various amici.

The NRA’s tactics in Seegars triggered the defendants in that case to raise substantial standing issues which were not raised by the defendants in our case, or their amici. Consequently, at oral argument in Parker, in October, 2003, the court asked the parties to submit additional briefing on the question of standing. However, during the course of the argument, the defendants’ attorney vowed that our clients would be prosecuted if they were to break the law.
(snip)

The NRA's attorneys need to take a procedure course.

Congratulations to the Gura and Possessky firm on their excellent victory, and good luck to them in any future appeals of this case if it goes that far.