Although I see it as sub-categories to ending the political debate on guns, I see gun control coming to an end, which it is about time. “Sensible gun laws” to the likes of Barack Obama and all others like him in politics means nothing less than an outright ban. I’m sure if DC and Chicago had full bans in place, Obama and other anti-gun politicians would refer to that as “sensible gun laws”.

I have never-ever heard a liberal/progressive use the 1st Amendment to support the 2nd Amendment, only to banish it away and appease their crowd.

There has never been so much controversy as the 2A, but by reading writings from Jefferson, Franklin, and others in the Federalist Papers, the clear reason for the 2A is for the People to have the ability to defend themselves from not only each other, but the government itself. This law is plain spoken, why is everyone taking it so deeply?

I for one see this issue as black and white. The 2A is an individual right, which is why it resides along all other amendments, which are for the individual as well.

In closing, the fallacy of emotion has taken a great law and made it into a great debate. I hope the courts make DC an example to the likes of Chicago, San Francisco, and other anti-gun circles.

If SCOTUS rules individual and doesn’t then impose a restriction based on maintaining dicta, both Silveria and Hickman are invalidated.

If SCOTUS rules the way the SG wants, then the law is also toast since the State will have to prove that an acceptable alternative is available for militia style duty and or that the law doesn’t imped any Federally run program like the CMP, JROTC, or ROTC.

If SCOTUS rules in one of DCs proposed ways, that its to protect militia style long arms in private hands and not handguns, its also toast.

For it to survive SCOTUS has to rule it collective; that it over rides Art 1, Sec 8, Claus 16; that the Federal definition of militia is invalid, and the State can impose any control it so wishes regardless of any side-effect on the State militia, the national guard or selective service.

But this is the issue everyone is afraid will cause Moderate Kennedy to rule for Collective, to protect the controls on Assault Weapons and Machineguns. The problem there is he’s Ex-National Guard and may have a better understanding of what these bans have already done to military readiness then his fellow justices.

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.

However, bureaucrats at the Department of Justice have taken the position that the Second Amendment says that:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms may be subject to reasonable restrictions.

The DOJ Brief essentially asks the Supreme Court to amend the 2nd Amendment to strike out ‘shall not be infringed’ and insert ‘may be subject to reasonable restrictions’.

One- the secret service couldn’t care less if the DC ban is thrown out or retained. Only two presidents have been shot dead in DC, Lincoln and Garfield. Kennedy was killed in Dallas and Mckinley in New York so a ban in DC wouldn’t have helped. Reagan was wounded in DC but years after the ban was imposed. Teddy was shot in Wisconsin, Roosevelt shot at in Florida, Ford twice in California. And hanks to two separate nuts we have Stinger missiles in the White House to shot down small aircraft. Finally, given the level of party animosity their is a serious threat that a group of senators may try and replay the death scene of Julius Ceasar, so metal detectors for knives will still be a very real thing regardless of what happens.

Second- Everyone believes its impossible for Bush or his AG to have been clueless on what the Solicitor General was going to say. After the NIE report fiasco I am actually a believer that Bush can be clueless. And right now he’s a lame duck president who no one wants to work with.

Three- Obama has never talked of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. He talks of the States rights under the second amendment to pass whatever gun legislation they want without fear of Federal interference. The States can even disband their common militia regardless of the right the President has to call it forth for service under Art 1 Sec 8 Cla 15. As President he would be the first to renounce the authority to call forth the militia and give the States the authority to disband in the name of gun control. A month later someone would then tell him that the Selective Service Act is connected to the Unorganized Militia Definition of 1903.

Let’s review the evidence:
-He was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation for years and oversaw the provision of millions of dollars in grants to fund anti-gun research and activism. While the gun rights movement is a large enough social phenomenon to directly influence politicians with the threat of votes, the anti-gun “movement” is driven by a few hundred dedicated activists and is a much more top-down organization. These organizations perform faux research or claim to represent police, doctors, lawyers, etc. They receive funding for these activities almost entirely from Joyce Foundation grants. Obama has long played a leadership role in this organization.

-While on the IL senate he supported, proposed or spoke in glowing terms of various draconian anti-gun measures that belie any actual support for gun rights. For example, he attempted to pass a ban on all semiautomatic firearms in IL. This would have banned an enormous portion of the civilian owned firearms in this country. He has also tried to ban handguns, scary looking rifles (assault weapons ban) and place various general restrictions on ownership and purchase of firearms. These restrictions are always crippling measures that could not possible serve any legitimate purpose- they are intended only to diminish and discourage the ownership of firearms to clear the way for even more draconian measures.

-even his current speeches start with a vague praise of the right to keep and bear arms but follow with a list of permissible restrictions that strip the right of any meaning.

Although I realize that it is inappropriate for you guys to admit the obvious due to your role as counsel to the petitioners, most people are finding Obama’s “support” for the RKBA pretty unconvincing. In fact, I predict that Obama’s IL Senate record and Joyce Foundation leadership role is going to be a major mobilizing force in the coming election.

I suspect that the Justices would not be at all pleased if Paul Clement were to wait until oral argument to spring a new government viewpoint on them. For one thing, time for oral argument undoubtedly was allocated based on the government’s split-it-down-the-middle position. Clement’s 15 minutes were added to the argument without a deduction from either side’s time. If the Justices knew that the SG would ultimately adopt a position akin to Respondents’, they most likely would have deducted Clement’s time from Respondents’ 30 minutes.

Under Supreme Court rule 37(3)(a), “[Amicus briefs] shall be submitted within 7 days after the brief for the party supported is filed, or if in support of neither party, within 7 days after the time allowed for filing the petitioner’s or appellant’s brief.”

Because Clement’s brief was filed in support of neither party, it was submitted to the Court on January 11, one week after the submission of the District’s brief. If the White House truly had expected Clement to urge the Court to affirm the judgment of the D.C. Circuit, it would have expected the SG to file the brief following the submission of Heller’s brief — i.e. by February 11.

Assuming that Bush and his aides were at least aware that Clement was going to file the brief on January 11, then, it is hard to imagine how they could be “stunned” to learn that Clement did not support affirming the judgment below.

In Illinois he has sponsored and aggressively publicly supported bans on semi-auto rifles of all kinds and spoken out for handgun bans, bans on magazines over 10 rounds and the ultimate gun ban shibboleth, the .50 caliber rifle.

He’s perfectly comfortable with the DC and Chicago gun bans as an example of “reasonable regulation”. I guess some folks could see a complete ban on all guns as “reasonable regulation”. I keep wondering if they’d feel the same way about a ban on all internet speech as “reasonable regulation” for the 1st amendment “for the security of the public”.

At one point Obama has proposed a Federal ban on concealed carry, putting him at odds with 48 states that voted otherwise.

If he now “believes” in an individual right, it’s more likely to be from advisors looking with more interest than usual at the election results for gun control advocates since 1994 than any deep seated principle that suddenly emerged.

As my Drill Sergeant used to say to us every morning in basic training: “Deeds not words”