Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.
Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not to the degree Obama has. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College on Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He has repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee news conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."
That would imply that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I concluded in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."
On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said he was: "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."
That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column.
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington.
© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Monday, April 7, 2008
NRA, SAG React To Charlton Heston's Death
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. -- The National Rifle Association says 80 million gun owners have lost a friend with the passing of Oscar-winning actor Charlton Heston, who died over the weekend at the age of 84.
Images: Charlton Heston | Video
Images: Recent Notable Deaths
Heston, who won the best actor Oscar in 1959 for "Ben-Hur" and may be best remembered for playing Moses in "The Ten Commandments," died Saturday at his home in Beverly Hills, with his wife of 64 years, Lydia, at his side, a family spokesman said.
A one-time Democrat who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington, D.C., in 1963, but later became a conservative, Heston, a lifelong National Rifle Association member, became NRA president in 1998 -- and a lightning rod for gun issues. His tenure at the NRA ended in 2003. The previous year, he announced he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease. In 2000, he stirred controversy when he held a musket over his head at an NRA convention and defied then-Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore to pry it "from my cold, dead hands."
Heston galvanized gun owners, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush once credited him for helping his brother, George W. Bush, win the presidency.
"...My heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a statement.
"America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have 4 million NRA members and 80 million gun owners."
Also praising Heston was the Screen Actors Guild. Heston was SAG's 16th president, serving from 1965 to 1971. He was an active member since receiving his SAG card in 1950.
SAG said in a statement that Heston was "an actor of astonishing talent, a capable and visionary union leader and, above all, a man of dignity and grace."
He often played fictional and historical heroes, including Moses in "The Ten Commandments" (1956), "El Cid" (1961), Michelangelo in "The Agony and the Ecstasy" (1965) and "Julius Caesar" (1950).
Other memorable roles include a marooned astronaut in "Planet of the Apes" (1968), a detective in "Soylent Green" (1973) and Robert Neville in "The Omega Man" (1971).
He also played a Mexican policeman in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958).
Heston's TV credits include "Dynasty" and its spinoff, "The Colbys."
"I have lived such a wonderful life. I've lived enough for two people," Heston once said, according to a family statement.
"To his loving friends, colleagues and fans, we appreciate your heartfelt prayers and support," the statement said.
"Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life ... known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played... We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humor."
Heston was born John Charles Carter in Evanston, Ill., on Oct. 4, 1923. His parents divorced when he was 10 and his mother married Chester Heston.
In 1944, he left college and enlisted in the Army Air Force. That same year, while in the service, he married fellow Northwestern University student Lydia Marie Clark.
He made more than 100 movies and won an Academy Award for best actor for the title role in "Ben-Hur" (1959).
In July 2003, Heston received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, from President Bush at the White House.
"Laura and I are saddened by the death of our friend, Charlton Heston," Bush said in a statement on Sunday. "Charlton Heston was one of the most successful actors in movie history and a strong advocate for liberty.
"Widely acclaimed for his long, award-winning film career, he also had a profound impact off the screen. He served his country during World War II, marched in the civil rights movement, led a labor union and vigorously defended Americans' Second Amendment rights. He was a man of character and integrity, with a big heart."
Former first lady Nancy Reagan called Heston a hero.
"I will never forget Chuck as a hero on the big screen in the roles he played, but more importantly, I considered him a hero in life for the many times he stepped up to support Ronnie in whatever he was doing," she said. "We were honored to know Chuck as a friend."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also praised the actor, saying that he "entertained millions of people around the world during his legendary film career and his many larger-than-life roles will live on forever."
The governor added that "I had the privilege of working with him in my movie 'True Lies,' and I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know him and his wonder family."
Heston is survived by his wife; two children, Fraser Clarke Heston and Holly Heston Rochell; and three grandchildren, Jack Alexander Heston, Ridley Rochell and Charlie Rochell.
A private memorial service will be held. The family has requested that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the Motion Picture and Television Fund at 22212 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.
Copyright 2008 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read 1 comment »
Type in your comments to post to the forum
Name
(appears on your post) You are currently logged in as . Not ?
Name
(appears on your post)
Registration Welcome to Topix Forums! Please fill out the form below to set up an account and post your comment. If you are a returning user, click here to log in. Topix Username
Will display with your forum posts
Email Address
Will never be shown to other users
Password
At least five characters (letters and numbers)
Confirm Password
Birthdate
Required by COPPA
[Select a month] January February March April May June July August September October November December
Login Sign in with your existing Topix account and write your comments below. Don't have an account?
Email Address
Password
Forgot your password?
Comments
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
Photo Gallery
GM Image
Which Are This Year's Top Family Cars?
See which cars made Kelley Blue Book's list of top family cars for 2008. More
PhotoVote: Winner Named For 'Me & My Pet'
Cindy Thompson
Check out our "Me & My Pet" winner, then check out the other great submissions. More
City Marina Kicks Out Topless Charter Service
Paranormal Investigators Probe Haunted Police Station
Name This Boy Band
Diapered Monkey Throws Wrench Into Morning Rush
Alligator Nabbed In Series Of N.J. Gang Raids
Woman: Video Shows Officer Pushing Her Down Stairs
Caught On Dashcam: Twister Tears Across Arkansas
Kids Critique New Style Skateboards
Dog Drives Family Van Over 5-Year-Old Girl
70-Year-Old Man Goes Back To 1st Grade
Links We Like
Find The Workplace That Fits You Best
There are certain core values and beliefs that you hold most dear. Make sure the company you want to work for is in line with those beliefs and you’ll be happier and more productive. More
Avoid Those Embarrassing E-Mail Moments
You don’t want to be the person that sends out that inflammatory e-mail. Find out what you can do to avoid e-mail mishaps that could cost you more than just a little embarrassment. More
See Your Credit Score For Free
A good credit score can save a lot of money the next time you want to make a big purchase. Find out where you stand with a free credit report. More
Check Out These Great Deals On Airfare
Now that the holidays are over, a vacation is really starting to look good. Check out these great travel deals and get away from winter boredom. More
Like online video? Then you'll love Now See This.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links We Like includes a selection of information, tools and resources from our partners and sponsors. Sponsored Links
Forget Monthly Fees. Satellite TV for PC
No monthly fees. 3000 channels.
SatelliteTvToPc.com
4000+ Satellite TV Channels On Your PC
Satellite TV for PC Titanium Edition. One-time fee for lifetime TV.
tcst.net
Sharp® Liquid Crystal TV
Learn more about the performance, design & vision of Sharp AQUOS®.
www.AQUOS.com
charlton heston presents the bible
charlton heston presents the bible & More. 100,000 Stores. Deals. Reviews.
shopping.yahoo.com
China East Technology - DVD Replication
Provides 1-stop in-house CD, Mini CD, Card CD, DVD-5, DVD-9 replication and duplication, CD-R, DVD+/-R, mini DVD-R manufacturing, printing and packaging service for companies worldwide.
www.chinaeast.com.hk
Indoor Games
Celebrity News
Southern California Attractions
Los Angeles Lakers
Find More:
Images: Charlton Heston | Video
Images: Recent Notable Deaths
Heston, who won the best actor Oscar in 1959 for "Ben-Hur" and may be best remembered for playing Moses in "The Ten Commandments," died Saturday at his home in Beverly Hills, with his wife of 64 years, Lydia, at his side, a family spokesman said.
A one-time Democrat who marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington, D.C., in 1963, but later became a conservative, Heston, a lifelong National Rifle Association member, became NRA president in 1998 -- and a lightning rod for gun issues. His tenure at the NRA ended in 2003. The previous year, he announced he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease. In 2000, he stirred controversy when he held a musket over his head at an NRA convention and defied then-Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore to pry it "from my cold, dead hands."
Heston galvanized gun owners, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush once credited him for helping his brother, George W. Bush, win the presidency.
"...My heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a statement.
"America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have 4 million NRA members and 80 million gun owners."
Also praising Heston was the Screen Actors Guild. Heston was SAG's 16th president, serving from 1965 to 1971. He was an active member since receiving his SAG card in 1950.
SAG said in a statement that Heston was "an actor of astonishing talent, a capable and visionary union leader and, above all, a man of dignity and grace."
He often played fictional and historical heroes, including Moses in "The Ten Commandments" (1956), "El Cid" (1961), Michelangelo in "The Agony and the Ecstasy" (1965) and "Julius Caesar" (1950).
Other memorable roles include a marooned astronaut in "Planet of the Apes" (1968), a detective in "Soylent Green" (1973) and Robert Neville in "The Omega Man" (1971).
He also played a Mexican policeman in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958).
Heston's TV credits include "Dynasty" and its spinoff, "The Colbys."
"I have lived such a wonderful life. I've lived enough for two people," Heston once said, according to a family statement.
"To his loving friends, colleagues and fans, we appreciate your heartfelt prayers and support," the statement said.
"Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life ... known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played... We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humor."
Heston was born John Charles Carter in Evanston, Ill., on Oct. 4, 1923. His parents divorced when he was 10 and his mother married Chester Heston.
In 1944, he left college and enlisted in the Army Air Force. That same year, while in the service, he married fellow Northwestern University student Lydia Marie Clark.
He made more than 100 movies and won an Academy Award for best actor for the title role in "Ben-Hur" (1959).
In July 2003, Heston received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, from President Bush at the White House.
"Laura and I are saddened by the death of our friend, Charlton Heston," Bush said in a statement on Sunday. "Charlton Heston was one of the most successful actors in movie history and a strong advocate for liberty.
"Widely acclaimed for his long, award-winning film career, he also had a profound impact off the screen. He served his country during World War II, marched in the civil rights movement, led a labor union and vigorously defended Americans' Second Amendment rights. He was a man of character and integrity, with a big heart."
Former first lady Nancy Reagan called Heston a hero.
"I will never forget Chuck as a hero on the big screen in the roles he played, but more importantly, I considered him a hero in life for the many times he stepped up to support Ronnie in whatever he was doing," she said. "We were honored to know Chuck as a friend."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also praised the actor, saying that he "entertained millions of people around the world during his legendary film career and his many larger-than-life roles will live on forever."
The governor added that "I had the privilege of working with him in my movie 'True Lies,' and I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know him and his wonder family."
Heston is survived by his wife; two children, Fraser Clarke Heston and Holly Heston Rochell; and three grandchildren, Jack Alexander Heston, Ridley Rochell and Charlie Rochell.
A private memorial service will be held. The family has requested that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the Motion Picture and Television Fund at 22212 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.
Copyright 2008 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read 1 comment »
Type in your comments to post to the forum
Name
(appears on your post) You are currently logged in as . Not ?
Name
(appears on your post)
Registration Welcome to Topix Forums! Please fill out the form below to set up an account and post your comment. If you are a returning user, click here to log in. Topix Username
Will display with your forum posts
Email Address
Will never be shown to other users
Password
At least five characters (letters and numbers)
Confirm Password
Birthdate
Required by COPPA
[Select a month] January February March April May June July August September October November December
Login Sign in with your existing Topix account and write your comments below. Don't have an account?
Email Address
Password
Forgot your password?
Comments
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
Photo Gallery
GM Image
Which Are This Year's Top Family Cars?
See which cars made Kelley Blue Book's list of top family cars for 2008. More
PhotoVote: Winner Named For 'Me & My Pet'
Cindy Thompson
Check out our "Me & My Pet" winner, then check out the other great submissions. More
City Marina Kicks Out Topless Charter Service
Paranormal Investigators Probe Haunted Police Station
Name This Boy Band
Diapered Monkey Throws Wrench Into Morning Rush
Alligator Nabbed In Series Of N.J. Gang Raids
Woman: Video Shows Officer Pushing Her Down Stairs
Caught On Dashcam: Twister Tears Across Arkansas
Kids Critique New Style Skateboards
Dog Drives Family Van Over 5-Year-Old Girl
70-Year-Old Man Goes Back To 1st Grade
Links We Like
Find The Workplace That Fits You Best
There are certain core values and beliefs that you hold most dear. Make sure the company you want to work for is in line with those beliefs and you’ll be happier and more productive. More
Avoid Those Embarrassing E-Mail Moments
You don’t want to be the person that sends out that inflammatory e-mail. Find out what you can do to avoid e-mail mishaps that could cost you more than just a little embarrassment. More
See Your Credit Score For Free
A good credit score can save a lot of money the next time you want to make a big purchase. Find out where you stand with a free credit report. More
Check Out These Great Deals On Airfare
Now that the holidays are over, a vacation is really starting to look good. Check out these great travel deals and get away from winter boredom. More
Like online video? Then you'll love Now See This.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links We Like includes a selection of information, tools and resources from our partners and sponsors. Sponsored Links
Forget Monthly Fees. Satellite TV for PC
No monthly fees. 3000 channels.
SatelliteTvToPc.com
4000+ Satellite TV Channels On Your PC
Satellite TV for PC Titanium Edition. One-time fee for lifetime TV.
tcst.net
Sharp® Liquid Crystal TV
Learn more about the performance, design & vision of Sharp AQUOS®.
www.AQUOS.com
charlton heston presents the bible
charlton heston presents the bible & More. 100,000 Stores. Deals. Reviews.
shopping.yahoo.com
China East Technology - DVD Replication
Provides 1-stop in-house CD, Mini CD, Card CD, DVD-5, DVD-9 replication and duplication, CD-R, DVD+/-R, mini DVD-R manufacturing, printing and packaging service for companies worldwide.
www.chinaeast.com.hk
Indoor Games
Celebrity News
Southern California Attractions
Los Angeles Lakers
Find More:
For Actor Charlton Heston, Gun Rights Were 11th Commandment
WASHINGTON — Charlton Heston brought 10 commandments to the big screen and an 11th to big politics: Thou shalt not abridge gun rights.
He was much like Ronald Reagan, minus the presidency. Both were actors and union leaders whose politics switched to the right over time.
Both became strangers to Hollywood's Democratic mainstream. Both walked into an Alzheimer's twilight.
But Heston's conservatism was put to a more pointed, nearly single-issue use, as president of the National Rifle Association. To gun control activists, Heston stepped forward as a reassuring face for a movement they consider extremist, aggressive and sophisticated.
As Moses in the movies, he clutched the Ten Commandments to summon his followers. On the tablet of his political life, he carved the Second Amendment.
Heston was not just the public face of the gun-rights movement but a good deal of the fire in its belly during a transformational time in the decades-old debate.
He lived to see Democrats running away from a cause they once embraced, scared off by the likelihood that they lost the 2000 presidential election in part because of their gun-control advocacy.
For a conservative champion like Heston, that was pretty close to the Promised Land.
His death at age 84 brought tributes Sunday from public figures whose fortunes were linked in some way to his.
President Bush praised his commitment to liberty. Former first lady Nancy Reagan remembered Heston's long association with her late husband.
The most telling tribute may have come in 2003, when Heston stepped down after five years as president of the NRA, enfeebled by symptoms of Alzheimer's.
"Were it not for your active involvement," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told him, "it's safe to say my brother may not have been president of the United States."
It was in the 2000 campaign that the NRA went after Democratic candidate Al Gore with a vengeance built up over years of confrontation with the Clinton administration and its "jack-booted government thugs," as others put it.
Heston may have had too regal a bearing to use such incendiary words. But in attacking a Democrat who favored mandatory photo ID licenses for future handgun buyers, Heston held little else back.
Heston held a musket dramatically above his head and dared Gore from afar to pry it "from my cold dead hands."
Gore lost blue-collar votes to Bush in an election so close any setback was perilous.
The key finding from 2000: About half of voters were from gun-owning households, and they voted for Bush by 61 percent to 36 percent. Voters from households without guns backed Gore 58-39.
Ever since, Democrats in presidential and many congressional and governors' races have scrambled to establish their bona fides as hunters, if they can, or as admirers of firearms or the Second Amendment if they can't.
After a student shot five people dead and then himself on the campus of Northern Illinois University in February, Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted their support for the right to bear arms.
Old positions, such as Clinton's support in 2000 for a federal requirement for state-issued photo gun licenses, were brushed aside. Clinton told an audience her dad taught her to hunt, and said to reporters that she shot a duck in Arkansas.
On his way to the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry donned a flannel shirt and rubber boots on a hunting trip where he shot pheasants. In the 2004 campaign and again this year, John Edwards played up his hunting days.
Heston hadn't been a box-office star since the 1970s but upon his departure as NRA president, Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence credited him as a persuasive actor for his cause.
Heston was good at "acting as though these extreme measures -- basically, what the NRA is doing -- aren't extreme," he said.
Heston took up other issues, including violence in entertainment, and he marched for civil rights in the 1960s.
In 1992, he stunned a Time Warner annual meeting by reading aloud lyrics from an album by Body Count, a band featuring rapper Ice-T. The album included songs about killing police and sodomizing women.
"It's often been said that if Adolf Hitler came back with a hot movie synopsis, every studio in town would be after it," Heston said. "Would Warner's be among them?"
In response to such protests, Ice-T pulled the song "Cop Killer" from the album.
But gun rights are where Heston most left his mark.
He became NRA president in 1998 as the group was dealing with internal strife and hostility from Bill Clinton's administration and many in Congress. It raised its membership to 4 million members during his time as president.
After the 2000 election, Gore's campaign spokesman, Doug Hattaway, recalled flying over Gore's home state of Tennessee and overhearing two men talking in business class. "The problem with Al Gore is he'll take our guns away," one said.
"I knew we were in trouble," said Hattaway.
That exchange, it could be said, was his Holy Moses moment.
He was much like Ronald Reagan, minus the presidency. Both were actors and union leaders whose politics switched to the right over time.
Both became strangers to Hollywood's Democratic mainstream. Both walked into an Alzheimer's twilight.
But Heston's conservatism was put to a more pointed, nearly single-issue use, as president of the National Rifle Association. To gun control activists, Heston stepped forward as a reassuring face for a movement they consider extremist, aggressive and sophisticated.
As Moses in the movies, he clutched the Ten Commandments to summon his followers. On the tablet of his political life, he carved the Second Amendment.
Heston was not just the public face of the gun-rights movement but a good deal of the fire in its belly during a transformational time in the decades-old debate.
He lived to see Democrats running away from a cause they once embraced, scared off by the likelihood that they lost the 2000 presidential election in part because of their gun-control advocacy.
For a conservative champion like Heston, that was pretty close to the Promised Land.
His death at age 84 brought tributes Sunday from public figures whose fortunes were linked in some way to his.
President Bush praised his commitment to liberty. Former first lady Nancy Reagan remembered Heston's long association with her late husband.
The most telling tribute may have come in 2003, when Heston stepped down after five years as president of the NRA, enfeebled by symptoms of Alzheimer's.
"Were it not for your active involvement," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told him, "it's safe to say my brother may not have been president of the United States."
It was in the 2000 campaign that the NRA went after Democratic candidate Al Gore with a vengeance built up over years of confrontation with the Clinton administration and its "jack-booted government thugs," as others put it.
Heston may have had too regal a bearing to use such incendiary words. But in attacking a Democrat who favored mandatory photo ID licenses for future handgun buyers, Heston held little else back.
Heston held a musket dramatically above his head and dared Gore from afar to pry it "from my cold dead hands."
Gore lost blue-collar votes to Bush in an election so close any setback was perilous.
The key finding from 2000: About half of voters were from gun-owning households, and they voted for Bush by 61 percent to 36 percent. Voters from households without guns backed Gore 58-39.
Ever since, Democrats in presidential and many congressional and governors' races have scrambled to establish their bona fides as hunters, if they can, or as admirers of firearms or the Second Amendment if they can't.
After a student shot five people dead and then himself on the campus of Northern Illinois University in February, Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted their support for the right to bear arms.
Old positions, such as Clinton's support in 2000 for a federal requirement for state-issued photo gun licenses, were brushed aside. Clinton told an audience her dad taught her to hunt, and said to reporters that she shot a duck in Arkansas.
On his way to the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry donned a flannel shirt and rubber boots on a hunting trip where he shot pheasants. In the 2004 campaign and again this year, John Edwards played up his hunting days.
Heston hadn't been a box-office star since the 1970s but upon his departure as NRA president, Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence credited him as a persuasive actor for his cause.
Heston was good at "acting as though these extreme measures -- basically, what the NRA is doing -- aren't extreme," he said.
Heston took up other issues, including violence in entertainment, and he marched for civil rights in the 1960s.
In 1992, he stunned a Time Warner annual meeting by reading aloud lyrics from an album by Body Count, a band featuring rapper Ice-T. The album included songs about killing police and sodomizing women.
"It's often been said that if Adolf Hitler came back with a hot movie synopsis, every studio in town would be after it," Heston said. "Would Warner's be among them?"
In response to such protests, Ice-T pulled the song "Cop Killer" from the album.
But gun rights are where Heston most left his mark.
He became NRA president in 1998 as the group was dealing with internal strife and hostility from Bill Clinton's administration and many in Congress. It raised its membership to 4 million members during his time as president.
After the 2000 election, Gore's campaign spokesman, Doug Hattaway, recalled flying over Gore's home state of Tennessee and overhearing two men talking in business class. "The problem with Al Gore is he'll take our guns away," one said.
"I knew we were in trouble," said Hattaway.
That exchange, it could be said, was his Holy Moses moment.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Film legend Charlton Heston dead at 84
LOS ANGELES - Charlton Heston, who won the 1959 best actor Oscar as the chariot-racing "Ben-Hur" and portrayed Moses, Michelangelo, El Cid and other heroic figures in movie epics of the '50s and '60s, has died. He was 84.
ADVERTISEMENT
The actor died Saturday night at his home in Beverly Hills with his wife Lydia at his side, family spokesman Bill Powers said.
Powers declined to comment on the cause of death or provide further details.
"Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played," Heston's family said in a statement. "No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country."
Heston revealed in 2002 that he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease, saying, "I must reconcile courage and surrender in equal measure."
With his large, muscular build, well-boned face and sonorous voice, Heston proved the ideal star during the period when Hollywood was filling movie screens with panoramas depicting the religious and historical past. "I have a face that belongs in another century," he often remarked.
The actor assumed the role of leader offscreen as well. He served as president of the Screen Actors Guild and chairman of the American Film Institute and marched in the civil rights movement of the 1950s. With age, he grew more conservative and campaigned for conservative candidates.
In June 1998, Heston was elected president of the National Rifle Association, for which he had posed for ads holding a rifle. He delivered a jab at then-President Clinton, saying, "America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns."
Heston stepped down as NRA president in April 2003, telling members his five years in office were "quite a ride. ... I loved every minute of it."
Later that year, Heston was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. "The largeness of character that comes across the screen has also been seen throughout his life," President Bush said at the time.
He engaged in a lengthy feud with liberal Ed Asner during the latter's tenure as president of the Screen Actors Guild. His latter-day activism almost overshadowed his achievements as an actor, which were considerable.
Heston lent his strong presence to some of the most acclaimed and successful films of the midcentury. "Ben-Hur" won 11 Academy Awards, tying it for the record with the more recent "Titanic" (1997) and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003). Heston's other hits include: "The Ten Commandments," "El Cid," "55 Days at Peking," "Planet of the Apes" and "Earthquake."
He liked the cite the number of historical figures he had portrayed:
Andrew Jackson ("The President's Lady," "The Buccaneer"), Moses ("The Ten Commandments"), title role of "El Cid," John the Baptist ("The Greatest Story Ever Told"), Michelangelo ("The Agony and the Ecstasy"), General Gordon ("Khartoum"), Marc Antony ("Julius Caesar," "Antony and Cleopatra"), Cardinal Richelieu ("The Three Musketeers"), Henry VIII ("The Prince and the Pauper").
Heston made his movie debut in the 1940s in two independent films by a college classmate, David Bradley, who later became a noted film archivist. He had the title role in "Peer Gynt" in 1942 and was Marc Antony in Bradley's 1949 version of "Julius Caesar," for which Heston was paid $50 a week.
Film producer Hal B. Wallis ("Casablanca") spotted Heston in a 1950 television production of "Wuthering Heights" and offered him a contract. When his wife reminded him that they had decided to pursue theater and television, he replied, "Well, maybe just for one film to see what it's like."
Heston earned star billing from his first Hollywood movie, "Dark City," a 1950 film noir. Cecil B. DeMille next cast him as the circus manager in the all-star "The Greatest Show On Earth," named by the Motion Picture Academy as the best picture of 1952. More movies followed:
"The Savage," "Ruby Gentry," "The President's Lady," "Pony Express" (as Buffalo Bill Cody), "Arrowhead," "Bad for Each Other," "The Naked Jungle," "Secret of the Incas," "The Far Horizons" (as Clark of the Lewis and Clark trek), "The Private War of Major Benson," "Lucy Gallant."
Most were forgettable low-budget films, and Heston seemed destined to remain an undistinguished action star. His old boss DeMille rescued him.
The director had long planned a new version of "The Ten Commandments," which he had made as a silent in 1923 with a radically different approach that combined biblical and modern stories. He was struck by Heston's facial resemblance to Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses, especially the similar broken nose, and put the actor through a long series of tests before giving him the role.
The Hestons' newborn, Fraser Clarke Heston, played the role of the infant Moses in the film.
More films followed: the eccentric thriller "Touch of Evil," directed by Orson Welles; William Wyler's "The Big Country," costarring with Gregory Peck; a sea saga, "The Wreck of the Mary Deare" with Gary Cooper.
Then his greatest role: "Ben-Hur."
Heston wasn't the first to be considered for the remake of 1925 biblical epic. Marlon Brando, Burt Lancaster and Rock Hudson had declined the film. Heston plunged into the role, rehearsing two months for the furious chariot race.
He railed at suggestions the race had been shot with a double: "I couldn't drive it well, but that wasn't necessary. All I had to do was stay on board so they could shoot me there. I didn't have to worry; MGM guaranteed I would win the race."
The huge success of "Ben-Hur" and Heston's Oscar made him one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood. He combined big-screen epics like "El Cid" and "55 Days at Peking" with lesser ones such as "Diamond Head," "Will Penny" and "Airport 1975." In his later years he played cameos in such films as "Wayne's World 2" and "Tombstone."
He often returned to the theater, appearing in such plays as "A Long Day's Journey into Night" and "A Man for All Seasons." He starred as a tycoon in the prime-time soap opera, "The Colbys," a two-season spinoff of "Dynasty."
At his birth in a Chicago suburb on Oct. 4, 1923, his name was Charles Carter. His parents moved to St. Helen, Mich., where his father, Russell Carter, operated a lumber mill. Growing up in the Michigan woods with almost no playmates, young Charles read books of adventure and devised his own games while wandering the countryside with his rifle.
Charles's parents divorced, and she married Chester Heston, a factory plant superintendent in Wilmette, Ill., an upscale north Chicago suburb. Shy and feeling displaced in the big city, the boy had trouble adjusting to the new high school. He took refuge in the drama department.
"What acting offered me was the chance to be many other people," he said in a 1986 interview. "In those days I wasn't satisfied with being me."
Calling himself Charlton Heston from his mother's maiden name and his stepfather's last name, he won an acting scholarship to Northwestern University in 1941. He excelled in campus plays and appeared on Chicago radio. In 1943, he enlisted in the Army Air Force and served as a radio-gunner in the Aleutians.
In 1944 he married another Northwestern drama student, Lydia Clarke, and after his army discharge in 1947, they moved to New York to seek acting jobs. Finding none, they hired on as codirectors and principal actors at a summer theater in Asheville, N.C.
Back in New York, both Hestons began finding work. With his strong 6-feet-2 build and craggily handsome face, Heston won roles in TV soap operas, plays ("Antony and Cleopatra" with Katherine Cornell) and live TV dramas such as "Julius Caesar," "Macbeth," "The Taming of the Shrew" and "Of Human Bondage."
Heston wrote several books: "The Actor's Life: Journals 1956-1976," published in 1978; "Beijing Diary: 1990," concerning his direction of the play "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" in Chinese; "In the Arena: An Autobiography," 1995; and "Charlton Heston's Hollywood: 50 Years of American Filmmaking," 1998.
Besides Fraser, who directed his father in an adventure film, "Mother Lode," the Hestons had a daughter, Holly Ann, born Aug. 2, 1961. The couple celebrated their golden wedding anniversary in 1994 at a party with Hollywood and political friends. They had been married 64 years when he died.
In late years, Heston drew as much publicity for his crusades as for his performances. In addition to his NRA work, he campaigned for Republican presidential and congressional candidates and against affirmative action.
He resigned from Actors Equity, claiming the union's refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in "Miss Saigon" was "obscenely racist." He attacked CNN's telecasts from Baghdad as "sowing doubts" about the allied effort in the 1990-91 Gulf War.
At a Time Warner stockholders meeting, he castigated the company for releasing an Ice-T album that purportedly encouraged cop killing.
Heston wrote in "In the Arena" that he was proud of what he did "though now I'll surely never be offered another film by Warners, nor get a good review in Time. On the other hand, I doubt I'll get a traffic ticket very soon."
__
Associated Press writer Thomas Watkins contributed to this report.
ADVERTISEMENT
The actor died Saturday night at his home in Beverly Hills with his wife Lydia at his side, family spokesman Bill Powers said.
Powers declined to comment on the cause of death or provide further details.
"Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played," Heston's family said in a statement. "No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country."
Heston revealed in 2002 that he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease, saying, "I must reconcile courage and surrender in equal measure."
With his large, muscular build, well-boned face and sonorous voice, Heston proved the ideal star during the period when Hollywood was filling movie screens with panoramas depicting the religious and historical past. "I have a face that belongs in another century," he often remarked.
The actor assumed the role of leader offscreen as well. He served as president of the Screen Actors Guild and chairman of the American Film Institute and marched in the civil rights movement of the 1950s. With age, he grew more conservative and campaigned for conservative candidates.
In June 1998, Heston was elected president of the National Rifle Association, for which he had posed for ads holding a rifle. He delivered a jab at then-President Clinton, saying, "America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns."
Heston stepped down as NRA president in April 2003, telling members his five years in office were "quite a ride. ... I loved every minute of it."
Later that year, Heston was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. "The largeness of character that comes across the screen has also been seen throughout his life," President Bush said at the time.
He engaged in a lengthy feud with liberal Ed Asner during the latter's tenure as president of the Screen Actors Guild. His latter-day activism almost overshadowed his achievements as an actor, which were considerable.
Heston lent his strong presence to some of the most acclaimed and successful films of the midcentury. "Ben-Hur" won 11 Academy Awards, tying it for the record with the more recent "Titanic" (1997) and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003). Heston's other hits include: "The Ten Commandments," "El Cid," "55 Days at Peking," "Planet of the Apes" and "Earthquake."
He liked the cite the number of historical figures he had portrayed:
Andrew Jackson ("The President's Lady," "The Buccaneer"), Moses ("The Ten Commandments"), title role of "El Cid," John the Baptist ("The Greatest Story Ever Told"), Michelangelo ("The Agony and the Ecstasy"), General Gordon ("Khartoum"), Marc Antony ("Julius Caesar," "Antony and Cleopatra"), Cardinal Richelieu ("The Three Musketeers"), Henry VIII ("The Prince and the Pauper").
Heston made his movie debut in the 1940s in two independent films by a college classmate, David Bradley, who later became a noted film archivist. He had the title role in "Peer Gynt" in 1942 and was Marc Antony in Bradley's 1949 version of "Julius Caesar," for which Heston was paid $50 a week.
Film producer Hal B. Wallis ("Casablanca") spotted Heston in a 1950 television production of "Wuthering Heights" and offered him a contract. When his wife reminded him that they had decided to pursue theater and television, he replied, "Well, maybe just for one film to see what it's like."
Heston earned star billing from his first Hollywood movie, "Dark City," a 1950 film noir. Cecil B. DeMille next cast him as the circus manager in the all-star "The Greatest Show On Earth," named by the Motion Picture Academy as the best picture of 1952. More movies followed:
"The Savage," "Ruby Gentry," "The President's Lady," "Pony Express" (as Buffalo Bill Cody), "Arrowhead," "Bad for Each Other," "The Naked Jungle," "Secret of the Incas," "The Far Horizons" (as Clark of the Lewis and Clark trek), "The Private War of Major Benson," "Lucy Gallant."
Most were forgettable low-budget films, and Heston seemed destined to remain an undistinguished action star. His old boss DeMille rescued him.
The director had long planned a new version of "The Ten Commandments," which he had made as a silent in 1923 with a radically different approach that combined biblical and modern stories. He was struck by Heston's facial resemblance to Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses, especially the similar broken nose, and put the actor through a long series of tests before giving him the role.
The Hestons' newborn, Fraser Clarke Heston, played the role of the infant Moses in the film.
More films followed: the eccentric thriller "Touch of Evil," directed by Orson Welles; William Wyler's "The Big Country," costarring with Gregory Peck; a sea saga, "The Wreck of the Mary Deare" with Gary Cooper.
Then his greatest role: "Ben-Hur."
Heston wasn't the first to be considered for the remake of 1925 biblical epic. Marlon Brando, Burt Lancaster and Rock Hudson had declined the film. Heston plunged into the role, rehearsing two months for the furious chariot race.
He railed at suggestions the race had been shot with a double: "I couldn't drive it well, but that wasn't necessary. All I had to do was stay on board so they could shoot me there. I didn't have to worry; MGM guaranteed I would win the race."
The huge success of "Ben-Hur" and Heston's Oscar made him one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood. He combined big-screen epics like "El Cid" and "55 Days at Peking" with lesser ones such as "Diamond Head," "Will Penny" and "Airport 1975." In his later years he played cameos in such films as "Wayne's World 2" and "Tombstone."
He often returned to the theater, appearing in such plays as "A Long Day's Journey into Night" and "A Man for All Seasons." He starred as a tycoon in the prime-time soap opera, "The Colbys," a two-season spinoff of "Dynasty."
At his birth in a Chicago suburb on Oct. 4, 1923, his name was Charles Carter. His parents moved to St. Helen, Mich., where his father, Russell Carter, operated a lumber mill. Growing up in the Michigan woods with almost no playmates, young Charles read books of adventure and devised his own games while wandering the countryside with his rifle.
Charles's parents divorced, and she married Chester Heston, a factory plant superintendent in Wilmette, Ill., an upscale north Chicago suburb. Shy and feeling displaced in the big city, the boy had trouble adjusting to the new high school. He took refuge in the drama department.
"What acting offered me was the chance to be many other people," he said in a 1986 interview. "In those days I wasn't satisfied with being me."
Calling himself Charlton Heston from his mother's maiden name and his stepfather's last name, he won an acting scholarship to Northwestern University in 1941. He excelled in campus plays and appeared on Chicago radio. In 1943, he enlisted in the Army Air Force and served as a radio-gunner in the Aleutians.
In 1944 he married another Northwestern drama student, Lydia Clarke, and after his army discharge in 1947, they moved to New York to seek acting jobs. Finding none, they hired on as codirectors and principal actors at a summer theater in Asheville, N.C.
Back in New York, both Hestons began finding work. With his strong 6-feet-2 build and craggily handsome face, Heston won roles in TV soap operas, plays ("Antony and Cleopatra" with Katherine Cornell) and live TV dramas such as "Julius Caesar," "Macbeth," "The Taming of the Shrew" and "Of Human Bondage."
Heston wrote several books: "The Actor's Life: Journals 1956-1976," published in 1978; "Beijing Diary: 1990," concerning his direction of the play "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial" in Chinese; "In the Arena: An Autobiography," 1995; and "Charlton Heston's Hollywood: 50 Years of American Filmmaking," 1998.
Besides Fraser, who directed his father in an adventure film, "Mother Lode," the Hestons had a daughter, Holly Ann, born Aug. 2, 1961. The couple celebrated their golden wedding anniversary in 1994 at a party with Hollywood and political friends. They had been married 64 years when he died.
In late years, Heston drew as much publicity for his crusades as for his performances. In addition to his NRA work, he campaigned for Republican presidential and congressional candidates and against affirmative action.
He resigned from Actors Equity, claiming the union's refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in "Miss Saigon" was "obscenely racist." He attacked CNN's telecasts from Baghdad as "sowing doubts" about the allied effort in the 1990-91 Gulf War.
At a Time Warner stockholders meeting, he castigated the company for releasing an Ice-T album that purportedly encouraged cop killing.
Heston wrote in "In the Arena" that he was proud of what he did "though now I'll surely never be offered another film by Warners, nor get a good review in Time. On the other hand, I doubt I'll get a traffic ticket very soon."
__
Associated Press writer Thomas Watkins contributed to this report.
Friday, April 4, 2008
REGION: District attorney releases statement on Oceanside shooting
OCEANSIDE ---- After nearly three weeks of silence on the shooting of a North County woman and child by an off-duty police officer, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis released a short written statement Thursday that asks the public for patience.
View the statement
"I understand the public's desire to know more facts surrounding the March 15th officer-involved shooting in Oceanside," the statement read. "But until all those facts are in, we will not rush to judgment about the guilt or innocence of either party involved ---- and neither should the public."
The statement sheds no light on the remaining questions surrounding the shooting, in which off-duty San Diego police Officer Frank White fired five shots at a silver Honda Accord driven by Oceanside resident Rachel Silva, 27, wounding her and her 8-year-old son.
The Oceanside Police Department, which is investigating the shooting, has said the incident stemmed from a traffic dispute, but have released few other details about the events that led up to the shooting. Police said Silva has declined to talk to investigators.
Gene Iredale, the attorney representing Silva, said Thursday that he continues to advise her not to speak with police.
Iredale said detectives had recently tried "rather rudely" to interview several of Silva's friends and he does not believe investigators will treat Silva fairly. Toxicology tests were ordered on Silva, but not on White, on the night of the incident. The results of the tests have not been released.
"It seems like they are more interested in convicting Ms. Silva of drunk driving than they are of investigating her and her son's shooting," Iredale said.
Oceanside police Chief Frank McCoy has repeatedly denied that his department's investigation is unfair and city officials have backed him up.
At the end of Wednesday's Oceanside City Council meeting, Mayor Jim Wood again defended the department, stating that he believed the investigation has been "very professional."
Meanwhile, residents appear increasingly frustrated that so few details have been made public.
William Carpenter, a retired electrical engineer who has lived in Oceanside since 1988, said Thursday he is "very unhappy" with the way the investigation has been handled.
"There are not circumstances where I could go into a local shopping center, fire five shots, and not go to jail," Carpenter said. "The police would not accept any explanation on my part that would keep me out of jail, but we have this police officer still out walking around."
Authorities have been mum on the reasons White gave for discharging his weapon and have also declined to say whether Silva threatened the off-duty officer in any way that might have justified the use of deadly force.
McCoy told the North County Times on March 29, that the district attorney's office has asked his office to withhold recordings of 911 calls made to the department before, during and after the shooting, which occurred in a shopping center parking lot at 155 Old Grove Road.
In her statement, Dumanis declines to discuss how her office has or has not worked with Oceanside police investigators.
"I'm not going to address questions regarding the handling of the incident or subsequent investigation by the Oceanside Police Department," the statement reads, adding "They are responsible for their own decisions and policies."
Though the statement seems to put some distance between the Oceanside police's investigation and the district attorney's office, that has not generally been the case. On Mar. 27 the Police Department released a statement that said: "The District Attorney's Office was notified and responded to the scene. Their investigators have been working very closely with our detectives."
Iredale said he is perplexed by the twin statements regarding the district attorney's office's involvement in the investigation.
"Who's doing the work? Is it the Oceanside Police Department or is it in conjunction with the DA's office?" Iredale said.
View the statement
"I understand the public's desire to know more facts surrounding the March 15th officer-involved shooting in Oceanside," the statement read. "But until all those facts are in, we will not rush to judgment about the guilt or innocence of either party involved ---- and neither should the public."
The statement sheds no light on the remaining questions surrounding the shooting, in which off-duty San Diego police Officer Frank White fired five shots at a silver Honda Accord driven by Oceanside resident Rachel Silva, 27, wounding her and her 8-year-old son.
The Oceanside Police Department, which is investigating the shooting, has said the incident stemmed from a traffic dispute, but have released few other details about the events that led up to the shooting. Police said Silva has declined to talk to investigators.
Gene Iredale, the attorney representing Silva, said Thursday that he continues to advise her not to speak with police.
Iredale said detectives had recently tried "rather rudely" to interview several of Silva's friends and he does not believe investigators will treat Silva fairly. Toxicology tests were ordered on Silva, but not on White, on the night of the incident. The results of the tests have not been released.
"It seems like they are more interested in convicting Ms. Silva of drunk driving than they are of investigating her and her son's shooting," Iredale said.
Oceanside police Chief Frank McCoy has repeatedly denied that his department's investigation is unfair and city officials have backed him up.
At the end of Wednesday's Oceanside City Council meeting, Mayor Jim Wood again defended the department, stating that he believed the investigation has been "very professional."
Meanwhile, residents appear increasingly frustrated that so few details have been made public.
William Carpenter, a retired electrical engineer who has lived in Oceanside since 1988, said Thursday he is "very unhappy" with the way the investigation has been handled.
"There are not circumstances where I could go into a local shopping center, fire five shots, and not go to jail," Carpenter said. "The police would not accept any explanation on my part that would keep me out of jail, but we have this police officer still out walking around."
Authorities have been mum on the reasons White gave for discharging his weapon and have also declined to say whether Silva threatened the off-duty officer in any way that might have justified the use of deadly force.
McCoy told the North County Times on March 29, that the district attorney's office has asked his office to withhold recordings of 911 calls made to the department before, during and after the shooting, which occurred in a shopping center parking lot at 155 Old Grove Road.
In her statement, Dumanis declines to discuss how her office has or has not worked with Oceanside police investigators.
"I'm not going to address questions regarding the handling of the incident or subsequent investigation by the Oceanside Police Department," the statement reads, adding "They are responsible for their own decisions and policies."
Though the statement seems to put some distance between the Oceanside police's investigation and the district attorney's office, that has not generally been the case. On Mar. 27 the Police Department released a statement that said: "The District Attorney's Office was notified and responded to the scene. Their investigators have been working very closely with our detectives."
Iredale said he is perplexed by the twin statements regarding the district attorney's office's involvement in the investigation.
"Who's doing the work? Is it the Oceanside Police Department or is it in conjunction with the DA's office?" Iredale said.
Statement by San Diego County District Attorney
“I understand the public’s desire to know more of the facts surrounding the March 15th officer-involved shooting in Oceanside. I share the desire to get to the truth. But until all those facts are in, we will not rush to judgment about the guilt or innocence of either party involved—and neither should the public. The District Attorney's Office is waiting for the Oceanside Police Department to complete its investigation. Once the case is turned over to our office, an independent decision on whether or not to file criminal charges will be based on the evidence and the law, not public opinion. I acknowledge that it can be frustrating to wait for the investigative process to run its course.”
“I’m not going to address questions regarding the handling of the incident or the subsequent investigation by the Oceanside Police Department. They are responsible for their own decisions and policies. However, we have a legal and ethical duty not to release any information that could jeopardize a potential prosecution. That’s why we don’t discuss ongoing investigations. The testimony of witnesses not yet interviewed could be tainted by publicly releasing facts. We must protect the rights of the individuals. I can assure you we will balance that duty with public’s right to know.”
# #
“I’m not going to address questions regarding the handling of the incident or the subsequent investigation by the Oceanside Police Department. They are responsible for their own decisions and policies. However, we have a legal and ethical duty not to release any information that could jeopardize a potential prosecution. That’s why we don’t discuss ongoing investigations. The testimony of witnesses not yet interviewed could be tainted by publicly releasing facts. We must protect the rights of the individuals. I can assure you we will balance that duty with public’s right to know.”
# #
Obama comes out against concealed carry laws. "...innocent people could get shot..." - Townhall.com
Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”
US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during an appearance at the 38th constitutional convention of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 2, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
Related Media:
VIDEO: You Decide 2008: Clinton Challenges Obama
VIDEO: War of Words
These remarks break from Obama’s previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.
While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”
Obama elaborated later that month in a political forum sponsored by ABC News and the Politico. He said: “I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions."
Obama’s tough talk on gun control may be prompted by Philadelphia-based Democratic leaders who are pressuring Clinton and Obama to adopt harder stances on gun control. This issue is expected to come up in ABC News’ Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. 32 people were shot to death on the campus of Virginia Tech by Seung-Hui Cho April 16, 2007.
Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said in a statement Obama should apologize and revise his stance. “Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently law,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He has been insisting for months he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially he would prefers Americans not exercise that right.”
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”
US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during an appearance at the 38th constitutional convention of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 2, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
Related Media:
VIDEO: You Decide 2008: Clinton Challenges Obama
VIDEO: War of Words
These remarks break from Obama’s previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.
While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”
Obama elaborated later that month in a political forum sponsored by ABC News and the Politico. He said: “I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions."
Obama’s tough talk on gun control may be prompted by Philadelphia-based Democratic leaders who are pressuring Clinton and Obama to adopt harder stances on gun control. This issue is expected to come up in ABC News’ Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. 32 people were shot to death on the campus of Virginia Tech by Seung-Hui Cho April 16, 2007.
Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said in a statement Obama should apologize and revise his stance. “Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently law,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He has been insisting for months he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially he would prefers Americans not exercise that right.”
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
Obama's anti-gun position comes to light. OK with D.C. handgun ban - Townhall.com
Almost thirty five years ago, an obscure tape recording of President Nixon’s conversations with advisors came to light, revealing his knowledge of the Watergate break-in and leading to his resignation of the presidency. That recording became known as the “smoking gun.” Now another smoking gun has come to light, revealing Barack Obama’s real views on many issues, including gun ownership and the Second Amendment. It could cost him millions of votes in November, and the presidency.
Barack Obama currently leads Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. As things stand today, he is favored to win the nomination and face Republican John McCain in November.
US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during an appearance at the 38th constitutional convention of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 2, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Street Team '08: 'Idaho for Obama'
VIDEO: Winning a Knife Fight
The campaign that has brought Obama this far is premised on the idea that he is some sort of post-partisan, transcendent figure who could bring America together and bridge the divide between the Red States and the Blue States.
But in the past couple weeks America has been getting glimpses of a Barack Obama that is nothing like this manufactured image. Between his spiritual leader’s anti-American tirades and his off-the-cuff comments, Obama is looking less like a unifying figure and more like an ultra-left political activist.
When it comes to gun rights, Obama recently stated in a press conference he believes the Second Amendment speaks to an individual right. He said, “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.” He explained what he means by 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.” He went on, “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws . . . isn’t borne out by our Constitution.” In other words, the DC handgun ban is okay with candidate Barack Obama.
Like many of Obama’s contradictions, his stated belief in the individual rights view of the Second Amendment is at odds with his support for DC’s categorical ban on handguns. That law is currently being challenged in District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before the Supreme Court. Fifty five senators and 250 house members (including many Democrats in both chambers) signed a brief in that case supporting the individual rights view. Obama was not one of them.
And now we know why. As has been reported all week, in 1996 Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire where he revealed his true beliefs on all sorts of subjects, from abortion to school choice.
One question that has not gotten much attention, however, asks if Obama supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”
His answer could cost him the presidency. Since gun control became a partisan political issue in the late 1960s, the only two Democrats to win the White House (Carter and Clinton) have done so by portraying themselves to America as moderate, “common-sense” politicians in sync with Middle America. Supporting an absolute ban on owning any pistol or revolver is at odds with a vast super-majority of Americans, and shows Barack Obama to be far outside the mainstream of American politics.
National Democrat leaders don’t support an absolute ban on handguns. Some far-left politicians from liberal strongholds such as San Francisco, Chicago (where Obama is from) and New York City may tout such extremist measures, but not anyone trying to carry Pennsylvania, Michigan or Ohio in a presidential election. The last time a Democrat nominee supported a ban on handguns was Michael Dukakis, and we all know how that election ended.
Millions of hard-working voters in swing states like Pennsylvania are staunch gun owners. Many of them don’t have a problem with what some people call “reasonable regulations” on guns, but when you start talking about banning guns outright, they vote against you. Barack Obama is now on record with just such a radical agenda.
A smoking gun in the form of a tape recording cost Richard Nixon the presidency in 1974. Another smoking gun in the form of a questionnaire could cost Barack Obama the presidency in 2008. And 90 million American gun owners will be better off if it does.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.
Be the first to read Sandy Froman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
Barack Obama currently leads Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. As things stand today, he is favored to win the nomination and face Republican John McCain in November.
US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during an appearance at the 38th constitutional convention of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 2, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Street Team '08: 'Idaho for Obama'
VIDEO: Winning a Knife Fight
The campaign that has brought Obama this far is premised on the idea that he is some sort of post-partisan, transcendent figure who could bring America together and bridge the divide between the Red States and the Blue States.
But in the past couple weeks America has been getting glimpses of a Barack Obama that is nothing like this manufactured image. Between his spiritual leader’s anti-American tirades and his off-the-cuff comments, Obama is looking less like a unifying figure and more like an ultra-left political activist.
When it comes to gun rights, Obama recently stated in a press conference he believes the Second Amendment speaks to an individual right. He said, “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.” He explained what he means by 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.” He went on, “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws . . . isn’t borne out by our Constitution.” In other words, the DC handgun ban is okay with candidate Barack Obama.
Like many of Obama’s contradictions, his stated belief in the individual rights view of the Second Amendment is at odds with his support for DC’s categorical ban on handguns. That law is currently being challenged in District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before the Supreme Court. Fifty five senators and 250 house members (including many Democrats in both chambers) signed a brief in that case supporting the individual rights view. Obama was not one of them.
And now we know why. As has been reported all week, in 1996 Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire where he revealed his true beliefs on all sorts of subjects, from abortion to school choice.
One question that has not gotten much attention, however, asks if Obama supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”
His answer could cost him the presidency. Since gun control became a partisan political issue in the late 1960s, the only two Democrats to win the White House (Carter and Clinton) have done so by portraying themselves to America as moderate, “common-sense” politicians in sync with Middle America. Supporting an absolute ban on owning any pistol or revolver is at odds with a vast super-majority of Americans, and shows Barack Obama to be far outside the mainstream of American politics.
National Democrat leaders don’t support an absolute ban on handguns. Some far-left politicians from liberal strongholds such as San Francisco, Chicago (where Obama is from) and New York City may tout such extremist measures, but not anyone trying to carry Pennsylvania, Michigan or Ohio in a presidential election. The last time a Democrat nominee supported a ban on handguns was Michael Dukakis, and we all know how that election ended.
Millions of hard-working voters in swing states like Pennsylvania are staunch gun owners. Many of them don’t have a problem with what some people call “reasonable regulations” on guns, but when you start talking about banning guns outright, they vote against you. Barack Obama is now on record with just such a radical agenda.
A smoking gun in the form of a tape recording cost Richard Nixon the presidency in 1974. Another smoking gun in the form of a questionnaire could cost Barack Obama the presidency in 2008. And 90 million American gun owners will be better off if it does.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.
Be the first to read Sandy Froman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
Friday, March 21, 2008
Individual Rights Won in Today's Supreme Court Hearing, Says SAF
BELLEVUE, Wash., March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today's oral
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia
v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen's right to
keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
"We are confident," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "that the high
court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means
what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear
that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of
District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of
questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court
has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that 'the
people' are all citizens."
"We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun
ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact," he
continued. "Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement,
however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the
Second Amendment. Mr. Gura's remarks left the justices with a clear
understanding why the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional."
Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing
District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old
handgun ban, "won the oral argument."
"While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law
and regulation on the books," Gottlieb said, "we anticipate that the court
will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific
types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest
scrutiny."
"An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June," he
concluded, "will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms
laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy
that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws.
This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects
some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true
when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be
true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it
so."
The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest
and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action
group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own
and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more
than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to
better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia
v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen's right to
keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
"We are confident," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "that the high
court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means
what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear
that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of
District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of
questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court
has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that 'the
people' are all citizens."
"We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun
ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact," he
continued. "Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement,
however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the
Second Amendment. Mr. Gura's remarks left the justices with a clear
understanding why the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional."
Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing
District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old
handgun ban, "won the oral argument."
"While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law
and regulation on the books," Gottlieb said, "we anticipate that the court
will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific
types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest
scrutiny."
"An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June," he
concluded, "will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms
laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy
that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws.
This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects
some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true
when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be
true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it
so."
The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest
and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action
group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own
and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more
than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to
better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation
Counting to Five in D.C. v. Heller
In one of the threads about the D.C. gun ban case, at least one commenter was skeptical that there are (at least) five votes on the Supreme Court in favor of an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you read the transcript of yesterday's oral arguments, you'll see that John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy are pretty clearly on board:
Roberts [addressing Walter Dellinger, D.C.'s attorney]: If [the right to keep and bear arms] is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"?...
That concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question of whether the regulations at issue here are reasonable....
So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers? [referring to the distinction between handguns and long guns]
Scalia: I don't see how there's any contradiction between reading the second clause [of the amendment] as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia....The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....
[Blackstone] thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee.
Alito: If the amendment is intended at least in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense, and even as to long guns and shotguns...they have to be unloaded and disassembled or locked at all times, even presumably if someone is breaking into the home?
Kennedy: The amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms....
In my view [the Second Amendment] supplemented [the Militia Clause] by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia.
Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.
Roberts [addressing Walter Dellinger, D.C.'s attorney]: If [the right to keep and bear arms] is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"?...
That concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question of whether the regulations at issue here are reasonable....
So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers? [referring to the distinction between handguns and long guns]
Scalia: I don't see how there's any contradiction between reading the second clause [of the amendment] as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia....The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....
[Blackstone] thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee.
Alito: If the amendment is intended at least in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense, and even as to long guns and shotguns...they have to be unloaded and disassembled or locked at all times, even presumably if someone is breaking into the home?
Kennedy: The amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms....
In my view [the Second Amendment] supplemented [the Militia Clause] by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia.
Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.
DC-v-Heller-eyewitness-report-analysis
It is a most dangerous game we’re playing here. The major “news” outlets seemed to agree with my assessment (and I went out on a limb with that, 12 hours before any of them), that the High Court seemed ready and willing to unequivocally affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms. [NOTE: see my pre-game and post-game eyewitness reports here: http://www.PageNine.org]
But it doesn’t end there — it barely starts there. If they affirm, does that mean Gun Laws of America (listing every federal gun law, with plain English descriptions), is erased? How much of it becomes null and void? What about The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, or Texas, or any of the others? Are they history?
“Gun laws will be over” is the hysterical cry of the antis — that a pro-rights finding will wipe out every gun law in the country and plunge us into bloody terror. And those are almost the fears of the pros too — any finding less than total uninfringed keep and bear will jeopardize 200+ years of firmly established cherished rights.
That’s why the NRA and the Brady bunch were beyond reluctant to touch this thing. There’s no telling where it could end up. And the prospects, as I see them, are pretty scary stuff. The more I read my ton of inbound email, the more concerned I’m getting.
Not a single Justice or court brief suggested all or even many gun laws must go away, that’s just irrational raving. But whatever standard comes out, the Bradys will be able to make some claims that, “See, this falls within reasonable regulation.” And the pro-rights people will have openings to challenge some of the more odious laws, and see if they can prevail. No one knows where any of that will lead. We’re back to square one, legislatures, local courts, and the ballot box.
New laws that ban rights may be tougher to enact or even introduce, and pro-rights arguments may have more fuel. Rights-supportive laws may have some obstacles removed, though Texas managed to pass ten of those good laws last session without the Heller case. So who wins in that scenario?
—–
I used to think that a mere 30 minutes for each side’s oral argument was hopelessly small — how could you possibly address a subject adequately in so little time? I no longer believe that. It’s more like the adage, “Work expands to fill available time,” and when time is short — like before a vacation, or at the Supreme Court — you get an enormous amount done in a day or an hour, that otherwise takes weeks.
The level of intensity in that courtroom defies description. The brain power those nine people brought to bear, on top of the months of prep from the litigants, was exhausting. Any more time than we spent would have been overwhelming. It’s a good thing it’s kept to an hour (and this case ran 38 minutes long, quite rare). You just fit everything in, then declare an ending.
It’s like twilight magic when the Justices walk in through those crimson curtains. There, in one room at one table are the names you know, the faces you recognize, right in front of you clear as day, the most powerful legal minds (politically speaking) in the country, on the planet. And let me tell you, they knew their stuff. I was able to follow most, but not all, the proceedings. Some wrinkles were absolutely new to me, some connections they drew I couldn’t follow (but have begun to unravel in studying my notes and the transcript), and some parts I may never adequately connect. Those of you studying the transcripts (many wrote to say you are) are ahead of me.
The closing gavel bangs. Everyone rises. The nine nattily attired natives exit without delay. They retire to chambers just behind those crisp curtains — and though their actual procedures are not divulged, the process is roughly understood.
Chief Justice Roberts asks the cadre, so where do we stand, and takes a straw vote to gauge things — exactly what we all want to know — and cannot. In this case, he needs to find out:
1. How many of you are with an individual right existing outside any sort of militia service? Probably gets five, some observers suggest maybe even seven, no one I know sees all nine, Stevens being the hardest holdout if it comes to that. Of course all of this is speculative, on our side of the man behind the curtain.
2. Does the D.C. gun ban fail on Second Amendment individual-rights grounds? Everyone (out here) seems to think it must. No way to guess how many in there will find space to toss the 100%-total-ban-on-operable-guns-at-home-in-the-District as an unreasonable limit.
3. Is this individual right to arms (assuming they find one) a fundamental right, making it subject to so-called “strict scrutiny”? Here’s where it gets fuzzy, and concurrences and dissents will tear this apart. Here’s where the NRA types and the Brady types get to sweat, and probably spin whatever decision emerges to suit their ends.
4. What about the off-point issues that came out in the orals and the briefs? What exactly is an “arm” for the purposes of the Second Amendment? (Doesn’t matter to decide solely the D.C. issue, unless you want to adopt the D.C. position that sidearms can “reasonably” be excluded.) Are handguns, rifles and shotguns equal?
How much further than keep-and-bear-only-at-home-for-only-the-District-of-Colombia does this case reach? (Not at all if the Justices stay on point, but they could stray if they wish.) These will not have simple tabulations adding up to nine. These will become dicta — non “holdings” of the case, that will fire discussions for a long time to come. My guess is that every Justice will weigh in on these and similarly fudgy points until the next case arises. And a next case will arise.
5. Who’s going to write this one? The Chief Justice decides, receptive to the wishes and predispositions of his cohorts. Scalia maybe, perhaps Thomas whose interest is already in the prior written record. Smart money says Roberts will write it, it’s just too seminal, too golden an opportunity for posterity. Whoever pens it, they’re all going to get in their say.
Maybe the bigger question is — who’s going to dissent, and what’ll that say. The losers (out here in the public) will latch on to every word. How will the concurrences add or detract to the main holdings? How much red meat will the red- and blue-leaners on the Court throw their fans? Know this — the Bradys will come out screaming, as will the rights advocates, that we got this, that, the other, and the rest is judicial activism that must be overturned.
6. The most eager (and knowledgeable) Court watchers will, when the decision is released, turn immediately to the last page and look for the word “remand” (meaning nothing is settled), or “affirmed” (and the fun really begins in earnest).
——–
Strict scrutiny is a non-constitutional invention that evolved in the early 20th century around free speech rights. At its core, it says because free speech is a such a fundamental human and constitutional right, any law that seeks to limit it must pass the harshest examination, and mere government interest, even compelling interest in limiting speech must be narrow, explicit, specific to the speech to be limited, easily understood and clearly applicable to any other case that must be tested under the limit.
(In a case called Central Hudson, the Court devised a four-part test for speech bans: 1 - whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; 2 - whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial; if so, 3 - whether the regulation directly advances the asserted interest; and 4 - whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest. If “reasonable regulation” is a linchpin here — a frightening thought — can we expect to see some similar test?)
The reason U.S. Solicitor General Clement (the man who argues the government’s position at the Court) was granted time, was to fight to preserve existing “reasonable” federal gun laws. How many? Who knows. Which ones? No one can say (but machine guns and undetectables were mentioned repeatedly). Will he succeed? Undoubtedly. Undoubtedly.
A felon in prison will not be able to argue even under the wildest fantasy that the right to arms extends into prison even though, say, the right to due process or a fair trial does. The ban on arming a vessel of a foreign power (18 USC 961) will remain standing, no worries mate. Many gun laws serve a legitimate purpose and will not be compromised, despite some rather lunatic ravings to the contrary.
But what about owning some type of firearm currently banned to the public? How about a normal capacity magazine the exact same as police might be issued? How about bans on where you can carry — the known-to-be-dangerous so-called “gun-free” zones? Can bans on tasteful, discreet carry in public by innocent women (or men) withstand strict scrutiny? Is a government license/tax/test/expiration-date/required-papers/fingerprint a “reasonable” limit on the exercise of a fundamental right? There’s almost no end to such speculation. For these we must wait until June and then, it doesn’t end, it begins.
My guess — it’s unlikely the Court will go to such points. This time. They don’t have to, and to reach the greatest consensus they can, they won’t. Locally however, these points will be inescapable in years to come. Elect good representatives this November.
Don’t worry, as some people are, about machine guns and how quickly Mr. Gura “wrote them off.” 1 - They’re not at issue in this case, so it’s immaterial in context. 2 - You don’t want or need to push a court too far, so just stay on point, concede a pointless point, it’s moot. Get Mr. Heller the rights he seeks restored. 3 - Mr. Gura’s remarks are not the deal maker, the Justices’ are. Some of them were just fishing for something to grouse about. It’s fine to tell them, “Sure,” and get back to the business at hand.
The machine gun issue is also particularly sticky because, as the Court pointed out, it is standard issue for soldiers and so very neatly meets a definition of arms the public should have as related to potential militia service and readiness. Way too big and convoluted to go into in Heller, and simply not needed, yet.
It seems to me that the machine-gun issue will be easy for the Court to sidestep because they’re not technically banned, they’re taxed. The main controls are under Title 26, the tax code, not under Title 18, the criminal code, and again, neither matter in examining the D.C. ordinance.
When Congress first enacted those limits in 1934 the record shows they realized they had no authority to ban guns because of the Bill of Rights — but they reasoned they might be able to get away with implementing an insurmountable tax (the $200-per-gun tax was a fortune at the time). Through that mechanism they attached controls, paperwork, financial burdens and tax-evasion penalties that were almost as good as a ban for their purposes then. The courts acquiesced (and that’s a whole ‘nother story). The 1986 ban on no new full autos might be more difficult to justify, but it is just not at issue here at all. Some experts told me Gura was right on the mark handling that as he did. I also bridled though when the words first passed my ears.
Justice Roberts did ask if we even have to go anywhere near these things to settle the issue at hand, and he’s right of course, and will be prudent (read, very narrow) in the scope of this decision. I think they’ll duck all the fodder we out here like to chew, leave those to digest later. They’ve got enough on their plate without it.
Will the presidential election affect those future outcomes? You bet it will, and that may be the biggest question mark of all. Note that the news media has not raised the point. I wonder why.
That will have to hold you for now. Need to get to the 580 emails I found on my return (don’t worry, a lot are “anatomy enhancement” ads and similar crud), and the stack of interviews I’ve agreed to give. I plan to review the “news” media’s coverage of this (some great subtle deceptions and bias I could only pick up by having been there, along with the usual blatant lying and distortions); Bob Blackmer’s revealing perspectives from his overnight vigil in front of the Court and his mug in full color on page one (B section) of The Washington Times with the protest sign I crafted; the skinny on how we actually got in and what that was like; and more. Now, an hour of streaming audio at http://www.accentradionetwork.com (you’ll need to get their archive of it if available by the time this gets to you), and my wife wants sushi. Sounds good to me.
But it doesn’t end there — it barely starts there. If they affirm, does that mean Gun Laws of America (listing every federal gun law, with plain English descriptions), is erased? How much of it becomes null and void? What about The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, or Texas, or any of the others? Are they history?
“Gun laws will be over” is the hysterical cry of the antis — that a pro-rights finding will wipe out every gun law in the country and plunge us into bloody terror. And those are almost the fears of the pros too — any finding less than total uninfringed keep and bear will jeopardize 200+ years of firmly established cherished rights.
That’s why the NRA and the Brady bunch were beyond reluctant to touch this thing. There’s no telling where it could end up. And the prospects, as I see them, are pretty scary stuff. The more I read my ton of inbound email, the more concerned I’m getting.
Not a single Justice or court brief suggested all or even many gun laws must go away, that’s just irrational raving. But whatever standard comes out, the Bradys will be able to make some claims that, “See, this falls within reasonable regulation.” And the pro-rights people will have openings to challenge some of the more odious laws, and see if they can prevail. No one knows where any of that will lead. We’re back to square one, legislatures, local courts, and the ballot box.
New laws that ban rights may be tougher to enact or even introduce, and pro-rights arguments may have more fuel. Rights-supportive laws may have some obstacles removed, though Texas managed to pass ten of those good laws last session without the Heller case. So who wins in that scenario?
—–
I used to think that a mere 30 minutes for each side’s oral argument was hopelessly small — how could you possibly address a subject adequately in so little time? I no longer believe that. It’s more like the adage, “Work expands to fill available time,” and when time is short — like before a vacation, or at the Supreme Court — you get an enormous amount done in a day or an hour, that otherwise takes weeks.
The level of intensity in that courtroom defies description. The brain power those nine people brought to bear, on top of the months of prep from the litigants, was exhausting. Any more time than we spent would have been overwhelming. It’s a good thing it’s kept to an hour (and this case ran 38 minutes long, quite rare). You just fit everything in, then declare an ending.
It’s like twilight magic when the Justices walk in through those crimson curtains. There, in one room at one table are the names you know, the faces you recognize, right in front of you clear as day, the most powerful legal minds (politically speaking) in the country, on the planet. And let me tell you, they knew their stuff. I was able to follow most, but not all, the proceedings. Some wrinkles were absolutely new to me, some connections they drew I couldn’t follow (but have begun to unravel in studying my notes and the transcript), and some parts I may never adequately connect. Those of you studying the transcripts (many wrote to say you are) are ahead of me.
The closing gavel bangs. Everyone rises. The nine nattily attired natives exit without delay. They retire to chambers just behind those crisp curtains — and though their actual procedures are not divulged, the process is roughly understood.
Chief Justice Roberts asks the cadre, so where do we stand, and takes a straw vote to gauge things — exactly what we all want to know — and cannot. In this case, he needs to find out:
1. How many of you are with an individual right existing outside any sort of militia service? Probably gets five, some observers suggest maybe even seven, no one I know sees all nine, Stevens being the hardest holdout if it comes to that. Of course all of this is speculative, on our side of the man behind the curtain.
2. Does the D.C. gun ban fail on Second Amendment individual-rights grounds? Everyone (out here) seems to think it must. No way to guess how many in there will find space to toss the 100%-total-ban-on-operable-guns-at-home-in-the-District as an unreasonable limit.
3. Is this individual right to arms (assuming they find one) a fundamental right, making it subject to so-called “strict scrutiny”? Here’s where it gets fuzzy, and concurrences and dissents will tear this apart. Here’s where the NRA types and the Brady types get to sweat, and probably spin whatever decision emerges to suit their ends.
4. What about the off-point issues that came out in the orals and the briefs? What exactly is an “arm” for the purposes of the Second Amendment? (Doesn’t matter to decide solely the D.C. issue, unless you want to adopt the D.C. position that sidearms can “reasonably” be excluded.) Are handguns, rifles and shotguns equal?
How much further than keep-and-bear-only-at-home-for-only-the-District-of-Colombia does this case reach? (Not at all if the Justices stay on point, but they could stray if they wish.) These will not have simple tabulations adding up to nine. These will become dicta — non “holdings” of the case, that will fire discussions for a long time to come. My guess is that every Justice will weigh in on these and similarly fudgy points until the next case arises. And a next case will arise.
5. Who’s going to write this one? The Chief Justice decides, receptive to the wishes and predispositions of his cohorts. Scalia maybe, perhaps Thomas whose interest is already in the prior written record. Smart money says Roberts will write it, it’s just too seminal, too golden an opportunity for posterity. Whoever pens it, they’re all going to get in their say.
Maybe the bigger question is — who’s going to dissent, and what’ll that say. The losers (out here in the public) will latch on to every word. How will the concurrences add or detract to the main holdings? How much red meat will the red- and blue-leaners on the Court throw their fans? Know this — the Bradys will come out screaming, as will the rights advocates, that we got this, that, the other, and the rest is judicial activism that must be overturned.
6. The most eager (and knowledgeable) Court watchers will, when the decision is released, turn immediately to the last page and look for the word “remand” (meaning nothing is settled), or “affirmed” (and the fun really begins in earnest).
——–
Strict scrutiny is a non-constitutional invention that evolved in the early 20th century around free speech rights. At its core, it says because free speech is a such a fundamental human and constitutional right, any law that seeks to limit it must pass the harshest examination, and mere government interest, even compelling interest in limiting speech must be narrow, explicit, specific to the speech to be limited, easily understood and clearly applicable to any other case that must be tested under the limit.
(In a case called Central Hudson, the Court devised a four-part test for speech bans: 1 - whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; 2 - whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial; if so, 3 - whether the regulation directly advances the asserted interest; and 4 - whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest. If “reasonable regulation” is a linchpin here — a frightening thought — can we expect to see some similar test?)
The reason U.S. Solicitor General Clement (the man who argues the government’s position at the Court) was granted time, was to fight to preserve existing “reasonable” federal gun laws. How many? Who knows. Which ones? No one can say (but machine guns and undetectables were mentioned repeatedly). Will he succeed? Undoubtedly. Undoubtedly.
A felon in prison will not be able to argue even under the wildest fantasy that the right to arms extends into prison even though, say, the right to due process or a fair trial does. The ban on arming a vessel of a foreign power (18 USC 961) will remain standing, no worries mate. Many gun laws serve a legitimate purpose and will not be compromised, despite some rather lunatic ravings to the contrary.
But what about owning some type of firearm currently banned to the public? How about a normal capacity magazine the exact same as police might be issued? How about bans on where you can carry — the known-to-be-dangerous so-called “gun-free” zones? Can bans on tasteful, discreet carry in public by innocent women (or men) withstand strict scrutiny? Is a government license/tax/test/expiration-date/required-papers/fingerprint a “reasonable” limit on the exercise of a fundamental right? There’s almost no end to such speculation. For these we must wait until June and then, it doesn’t end, it begins.
My guess — it’s unlikely the Court will go to such points. This time. They don’t have to, and to reach the greatest consensus they can, they won’t. Locally however, these points will be inescapable in years to come. Elect good representatives this November.
Don’t worry, as some people are, about machine guns and how quickly Mr. Gura “wrote them off.” 1 - They’re not at issue in this case, so it’s immaterial in context. 2 - You don’t want or need to push a court too far, so just stay on point, concede a pointless point, it’s moot. Get Mr. Heller the rights he seeks restored. 3 - Mr. Gura’s remarks are not the deal maker, the Justices’ are. Some of them were just fishing for something to grouse about. It’s fine to tell them, “Sure,” and get back to the business at hand.
The machine gun issue is also particularly sticky because, as the Court pointed out, it is standard issue for soldiers and so very neatly meets a definition of arms the public should have as related to potential militia service and readiness. Way too big and convoluted to go into in Heller, and simply not needed, yet.
It seems to me that the machine-gun issue will be easy for the Court to sidestep because they’re not technically banned, they’re taxed. The main controls are under Title 26, the tax code, not under Title 18, the criminal code, and again, neither matter in examining the D.C. ordinance.
When Congress first enacted those limits in 1934 the record shows they realized they had no authority to ban guns because of the Bill of Rights — but they reasoned they might be able to get away with implementing an insurmountable tax (the $200-per-gun tax was a fortune at the time). Through that mechanism they attached controls, paperwork, financial burdens and tax-evasion penalties that were almost as good as a ban for their purposes then. The courts acquiesced (and that’s a whole ‘nother story). The 1986 ban on no new full autos might be more difficult to justify, but it is just not at issue here at all. Some experts told me Gura was right on the mark handling that as he did. I also bridled though when the words first passed my ears.
Justice Roberts did ask if we even have to go anywhere near these things to settle the issue at hand, and he’s right of course, and will be prudent (read, very narrow) in the scope of this decision. I think they’ll duck all the fodder we out here like to chew, leave those to digest later. They’ve got enough on their plate without it.
Will the presidential election affect those future outcomes? You bet it will, and that may be the biggest question mark of all. Note that the news media has not raised the point. I wonder why.
That will have to hold you for now. Need to get to the 580 emails I found on my return (don’t worry, a lot are “anatomy enhancement” ads and similar crud), and the stack of interviews I’ve agreed to give. I plan to review the “news” media’s coverage of this (some great subtle deceptions and bias I could only pick up by having been there, along with the usual blatant lying and distortions); Bob Blackmer’s revealing perspectives from his overnight vigil in front of the Court and his mug in full color on page one (B section) of The Washington Times with the protest sign I crafted; the skinny on how we actually got in and what that was like; and more. Now, an hour of streaming audio at http://www.accentradionetwork.com (you’ll need to get their archive of it if available by the time this gets to you), and my wife wants sushi. Sounds good to me.
As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment's controversial history
Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.
First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")
Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on whether the Constitution self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.
In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.
Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns. In fact, someone ought to remind Justice Kennedy about what happens when the wrong people get guns—namely the average, law-abiding D.C. residents who would supposedly benefit from the new gun ownership rights. With all his concern with grizzly bears, Kennedy has clearly forgotten about Carl Rowan Sr.
Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who'd gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he'd feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.
Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians’ whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence.
Washington Dispatch
First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")
Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on whether the Constitution self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.
In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.
Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns. In fact, someone ought to remind Justice Kennedy about what happens when the wrong people get guns—namely the average, law-abiding D.C. residents who would supposedly benefit from the new gun ownership rights. With all his concern with grizzly bears, Kennedy has clearly forgotten about Carl Rowan Sr.
Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who'd gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he'd feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.
Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians’ whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence.
Washington Dispatch
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Bruce Colodny a Lawyer will be on the show
Firearms Lawyer Bruce Colodny earned his B.A. from the University of California at Irvine in 1977 and his J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law in 1982. From his offices in Orange and San Bernardino, he has successfully defended gun owners throughout California against both State and Federal criminal charges involving machine guns, silencers, destructive devices, “assault weapons”, use of firearms for self-defense, etc. He has represented numerous firearms dealers, importers and manufacturers in licensing matters with the California Department of Justice Firearms Bureau and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also has a long record of courtroom victories in a wide variety of knives, martial arts weapons, fireworks and explosives prosecutions.
Friday, February 22, 2008
NRA / ILA Firearms Laws for Californa
NRA / ILA Firearms Laws for
A synopsis of state laws on purchase,
possession and carrying of firearms.
Compiled by:
NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(800) 392-8683
www.nraila.org
CALIFORNIA
(As of February 2007)
QUICK REFERENCE CHART
Rifles and
Shotguns Handguns
Permit to Purchase NO NO*
Registration of Firearms NO YES*
Registration of
“Assault Weapons” YES YES
Licensing of Owner NO NO
Permit to Carry NO YES
(if concealed)
*Police record purchases from dealers (all purchases).
Residents moving into California have 60 days to register
their handguns.)
PURCHASE
All firearms sales, transfers or loans, including private
transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a
California licensed firearms dealer.
An application for sale or transfer must be made
with a licensed California gun dealer before any firearm
may be sold or transferred. This application contains a
description of the buyer or transferee and of the firearm.
The purchaser must present the dealer with a valid
California Driver’s License or a California Identification
Card and supply their right thumbprint. The purchaser
of a handgun must also provide additional proof of
California residence, other than a document from the
Department of Motor Vehicles. The dealer sends a copy
of the application to the California Department of Justice
and the local police chief or sheriff.
The CA DOJ will conduct a background check on
each buyer and the fee is $25.00. There is a 10-day
waiting period before delivery of any firearm. Dealers
must keep a register of all firearm transfers. If a person
has voluntarily been screened through the Personal
Firearms Eligibility Check, and has been found eligible
to purchase and possess firearms, that person must still
undergo a background check and a 10-day waiting period
when purchasing a handgun.
If a person does not take possession of the firearm
from the dealer within 30 days, the entire purchase process
must be repeated, including the payment of fees.
The waiting period and dealer application do not
apply to transfers to police officers, other gun dealers,
manufacturers, or importers, antique firearms, and rifles
and shotguns which are classified as curios or relics by the
federal government, infrequent gifts or transfers to one’s
“immediate family,” an infrequent temporary loan not to
exceed 30 days to a person who is not prohibited from
possessing a firearm, and a transfer of a rifle or shotgun at
auctions by nonprofit or public benefit corporations.
No person shall make an application to purchase more
than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person within a 30-day period and
no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an
application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
within any 30-day period.
No person shall purchase or transfer a handgun to
someone without a Handgun Safety Certificate (HRC).
To receive a handgun safety certificate, a person must
pass a written test that includes but is not limited to laws
applicable to the ownership, use, handling, and carrying
of firearms, particularly handguns. A CA DOJ certified
instructor must administer the Handgun Safety Certificate
test. The HRC is valid for 5 years.
To receive a handgun from a dealer, a person must
have or buy an approved firearms safety device. A list of
firearms safety devices certified for sale can be found on
the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division
website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms
No person may receive a firearm from a dealer unless
they demonstrate their ability to handle a handgun safely
and can properly operate all safety features.
A gun dealer must post a sign advising “If you leave
a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly
uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.”
It is unlawful for any person to transfer any firearm
to a person who is forbidden to possess or own a firearm.
A dealer may not transfer a handgun to a person under
21 or other firearm to a person under 18. It is unlawful
to sell or furnish a BB device to any minor without the
permission of their parent or guardian. It is unlawful for
a person to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a
person under 18.
A firearm dealer may only offer for sale handgun
models that have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and
appear on the “Roster of Handguns Certified For Sale.”
Semiautomatic pistols without a chamber load indicator
or a magazine disconnect mechanism that do not pass
the safety testing requirements will not be placed on the
roster. All semiautomatic firearms on the roster must have
both a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect
mechanism. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns,
certain single action revolvers and pawn/consignment
returns are exempt from this requirement. The roster can
be found at the Department of Justice website.
POSSESSION
It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or
who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient,
ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by
reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm. People
with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or
violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10
years of the conviction. A person who has been adjudicated
as a juvenile offender or delinquent for any offense which
would be classified as a felony or misdemeanor involving
force or violence if committed by an adult may not own or
possess any firearm until age 30. A minor may not possess
a handgun except with written permission or under the
supervision of a parent or guardian.
Within 60 days of bringing a pistol, revolver or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person into
this state, the person importing the firearm must complete
and return a Department of Justice registration form or
sell or transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer, or transfer
the gun to a sheriff or police department. Registration of
rifles and shotguns is not required.
If any person seeks to know whether they can possess
or purchase a firearm in California before a transfer is
made, they may request a Personal Firearms Eligibility
Check conducted by office of the Department of Justice.
A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless
they are accompanied by their parent or guardian while
participating in a legal recreation activity involving
firearms or has written permission to participate in
such activities. A minor under 16 may not possess live
ammunition except with the written permission or under
the supervision of a parent or guardian, or while going to
or from an organized lawful recreational or competitive
shooting activity or lawful hunting activity
“ASSAULT WEAPONS”, .50 CALIBER BMG RIFLES
AND MAGAZINES
It is unlawful to offer for sale, give or lend any “assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle. It is unlawful to possess
an “assault weapon” or a .50 caliber BMG rifle unless it
is properly registered with the state. The registration
period for “assault weapons” and .50 caliber BMG rifles
has ended. If an individual has an unregistered” assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle after the registration
period has ended, they must relinquish the firearm to law
enforcement. Anyone with a registered “assault weapon”
or .50 caliber BMG rifle wishing to legally dispose of the
firearm: can sell it to a dealer with an “assault weapons”
permit (for such firearms) and .50 caliber BMG rifle permit
(for such rifles); or with both type of permits; relinquish it
to local law enforcement (after making an appointment);
remove the “assault weapon” or .50 BMG caliber rifle
from the state or destroy it. Any person inheriting a
registered “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle has
90 days to render the weapon permanently inoperable,
sell to an approved firearms dealer, obtain a permit from
the Department of Justice to possess firearms, or move
the gun out of state. Pawning “assault weapons” and .50
caliber BMG rifles is not permitted.
California law defines “assault weapons” in three
ways:
• firearms listed on the original Roberti Roos assault
weapons law.
• any firearm that is in the AK and AR-15 - type
series.
• by the specific generic characteristics.
A further explanation of firearms considered
“assault weapons” can be found on the Department
of Justice website.
A person may lend a registered “assault weapon” or
a .50 caliber BMG caliber rifle to another person who is
18 years of age or over if the person to whom the “assault
weapon” is lent is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
and remains in the presence of the registered possessor,
and the “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle is
possessed at a licensed target range, or at the target range
of a public or private club organized for the purpose of
practicing shooting at targets, or at an exhibition, display
or education project sponsored by a law enforcement
agency or a nationally or state recognized firearms entity.
Persons moving into California must comply with the
provisions of the law before moving.
Unless otherwise specified, registered “assault
weapons” may only be possessed:
• at registrant’s residence, place of business, or other
property owned by such registrant, or on property
owned by another with permission.
• at certain recognized target ranges or shooting
clubs.
• at certain recognized exhibitions.
• while on publicly owned land upon which
possession and use of “assault weapons” is
specifically permitted by the managing agency.
• while transporting the assault weapon between
any of the places listed above, or to any licensed
gun dealer.
It is unlawful for any person who manufactures,
imports, or offers for sale, gives, or lends any ammunition
magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds (not
including .22 tube magazines). Exceptions include: a
loan of a lawfully possessed magazine to a person who is
not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition,
if such loan occurs at a place where possession of the
magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who
lends the magazine remains in the accessible vicinity to the
person to whom the magazine is loaned; the importation
of a magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully
took it out of the state and is returning to the state; the
sale or purchase of a magazine to or by a person licensed
to sell firearms; and the lending or giving of a magazine to
a licensed dealer or gunsmith for repair and its return to
its owner.
CARRYING AND TRANSPORTATION IN
VEHICLES
It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or
handgun in any public place or on any public street in
an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is
prohibited. In California, a firearm is considered loaded
if unexpended ammunition capable of being used in the
firearm is attached in any manner to the firearm. The
following persons and situations are exceptions:
• persons shooting on target ranges, or while hunting
on the premises of a shooting club.
• a person who reasonably believes that he or his
property is in immediate danger and the weapon
must be carried for “preservation.”1
• a person “engaged in the act of making or
attempting lawful arrest.”
• a person carrying a firearm while at home or at his
place of business, including temporary residences
and campsites.
Carrying a handgun concealed is prohibited without
a license. The law states “Firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.”
Carrying a handgun concealed within a vehicle is
prohibited without a license. A handgun carried in a glove
compartment or under the seat of a vehicle is considered
to be concealed. A handgun placed in the trunk of an
automobile, or locked in a container in the vehicle other
than the utility or glove compartment or while in a locked
container carried directly to or from a vehicle is deemed
not to be “concealed.” A locked container means a fully
enclosed secure container locked by a key lock or similar
locking device.
Exceptions to this prohibition are: members of clubs
organized for practice shooting while on any established
target range or going to and from such range; licensed
hunters and fishermen while engaged in hunting or
fishing and while going to or from such hunting or fishing
expeditions and members of an antique or historical
collector’s club while at a show, or while going to and from
a display as long as the weapons are locked in a trunk or
are in a locked container.
ANTIQUES AND REPLICAS
Antique firearm means any firearm not designed or
redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire ammunition and
manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system
or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before
1898) and also any firearm manufactured in or before 1898
using fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured
in the U.S. and is not readily available in the ordinary
channels of commercial trade.
MACHINE GUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS
A machine gun is defined as any firearm, which
shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by single function of
the trigger. The term also includes any conversion part,
frame or receiver of a machine gun, or any firearm deemed
as such by the federal government. Upon a showing of
good cause, a permit for possession and/or transportation
may be issued by the Department of Justice. It has been
CAUTION: Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation. This summary is not intended as legal advice or
restatement of law. This summary does not include federal or local laws, ordinances or regulations. For any particular situation, a
licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL
AND LOCAL.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
reported that the Department of Justice refuses to grant
such permits.
Possession of other firearms and related items is
unlawful and may be punished as either a misdemeanor
or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to:
• any firearm that is not immediately recognizable
as a firearm.
• any camouflaging firearm container.
• any ammunition that contains any flechette dart.
• any bullet containing or carrying an explosive
agent.
• any multiburst trigger activator.
• any short-barreled shotgun or rifle.
• any zip gun; and
• any unconventional pistol.
The following are some of the exceptions: possession
of short-barreled shotguns and rifles when authorized by
the Department of Justice and not in violation of federal
law; antique firearms, which are defined as: any firearm
not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire
ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898
(including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or
similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether
actually manufactured before 1898) and also any firearm
manufactured in or before 1898 using fixed ammunition
which is no longer manufactured in the U.S. and is not
readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial
trade; tracer ammunition for use in shotguns; and any
“curio or relic” or “any other weapon” as defined by federal
law possessed by a person who is otherwise permitted
to possess it under federal law and not prohibited from
possessing firearms and ammunition under California
law.
It is unlawful to possess a destructive device, including
tracer or incendiary ammunition or any firearm larger
than .60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any fixed
ammunition for such firearm. Excluded are shotguns and
shotgun ammunition.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
No license or permit shall be required to possess keep,
or carry a handgun openly or concealed in one’s home or
place of business.
The state legislature also has expressed its intention to
occupy the whole field of the regulation and licensing of
firearms, thus precluding cities and other localities from
enacting firearms laws.
It is unlawful to set any spring or “trap” gun.
It is unlawful to change, alter or remove the serial
number, maker’s name or other identifying mark from
any firearm, unless one has secured the written permission
of the Department of Justice. Possession of a firearm with
altered identifying marks creates a legal presumption that
the possessor committed the offense.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm on the grounds or
in the buildings of any school without permission of the
school authorities, or courthouse, State Capitol building
or grounds, any legislative office or the office or residence
of the Governor, constitutional officer or member of the
Legislature.
It is unlawful to possess, transport, or sell ammunition
principally for use in a handgun, which is “designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor.”
It is unlawful to store a loaded firearm where the
person knows or reasonably should know that a juvenile
under 16 is likely to gain access to the firearm without
the permission of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian
and the juvenile obtains access to the firearm and causes
death or great bodily harm to self or any other person.
This prohibition shall not apply if: the juvenile obtains
the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises
by any person; the firearm is kept in a locked container or
in a location which a reasonable person would believe to
be secure; the firearm is carried on the person or within
such a close proximity so that the individual can readily
retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person;
the firearm is equipped with a locking device; the person
is a peace officer or member of the U. S. Armed Forces
and the juvenile obtains the firearm during, or incidental
to, the performance of the person’s duties; the juvenile
obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful
act of self-defense or defense of another person; and the
person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premise which
is under person’s custody or control has no reasonable
expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances,
that a juvenile is likely to be present on the premise.
SOURCE: Cal. Penal Code §12020 et. seq.
A synopsis of state laws on purchase,
possession and carrying of firearms.
Compiled by:
NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(800) 392-8683
www.nraila.org
CALIFORNIA
(As of February 2007)
QUICK REFERENCE CHART
Rifles and
Shotguns Handguns
Permit to Purchase NO NO*
Registration of Firearms NO YES*
Registration of
“Assault Weapons” YES YES
Licensing of Owner NO NO
Permit to Carry NO YES
(if concealed)
*Police record purchases from dealers (all purchases).
Residents moving into California have 60 days to register
their handguns.)
PURCHASE
All firearms sales, transfers or loans, including private
transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a
California licensed firearms dealer.
An application for sale or transfer must be made
with a licensed California gun dealer before any firearm
may be sold or transferred. This application contains a
description of the buyer or transferee and of the firearm.
The purchaser must present the dealer with a valid
California Driver’s License or a California Identification
Card and supply their right thumbprint. The purchaser
of a handgun must also provide additional proof of
California residence, other than a document from the
Department of Motor Vehicles. The dealer sends a copy
of the application to the California Department of Justice
and the local police chief or sheriff.
The CA DOJ will conduct a background check on
each buyer and the fee is $25.00. There is a 10-day
waiting period before delivery of any firearm. Dealers
must keep a register of all firearm transfers. If a person
has voluntarily been screened through the Personal
Firearms Eligibility Check, and has been found eligible
to purchase and possess firearms, that person must still
undergo a background check and a 10-day waiting period
when purchasing a handgun.
If a person does not take possession of the firearm
from the dealer within 30 days, the entire purchase process
must be repeated, including the payment of fees.
The waiting period and dealer application do not
apply to transfers to police officers, other gun dealers,
manufacturers, or importers, antique firearms, and rifles
and shotguns which are classified as curios or relics by the
federal government, infrequent gifts or transfers to one’s
“immediate family,” an infrequent temporary loan not to
exceed 30 days to a person who is not prohibited from
possessing a firearm, and a transfer of a rifle or shotgun at
auctions by nonprofit or public benefit corporations.
No person shall make an application to purchase more
than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person within a 30-day period and
no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an
application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
within any 30-day period.
No person shall purchase or transfer a handgun to
someone without a Handgun Safety Certificate (HRC).
To receive a handgun safety certificate, a person must
pass a written test that includes but is not limited to laws
applicable to the ownership, use, handling, and carrying
of firearms, particularly handguns. A CA DOJ certified
instructor must administer the Handgun Safety Certificate
test. The HRC is valid for 5 years.
To receive a handgun from a dealer, a person must
have or buy an approved firearms safety device. A list of
firearms safety devices certified for sale can be found on
the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division
website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms
No person may receive a firearm from a dealer unless
they demonstrate their ability to handle a handgun safely
and can properly operate all safety features.
A gun dealer must post a sign advising “If you leave
a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly
uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.”
It is unlawful for any person to transfer any firearm
to a person who is forbidden to possess or own a firearm.
A dealer may not transfer a handgun to a person under
21 or other firearm to a person under 18. It is unlawful
to sell or furnish a BB device to any minor without the
permission of their parent or guardian. It is unlawful for
a person to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a
person under 18.
A firearm dealer may only offer for sale handgun
models that have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and
appear on the “Roster of Handguns Certified For Sale.”
Semiautomatic pistols without a chamber load indicator
or a magazine disconnect mechanism that do not pass
the safety testing requirements will not be placed on the
roster. All semiautomatic firearms on the roster must have
both a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect
mechanism. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns,
certain single action revolvers and pawn/consignment
returns are exempt from this requirement. The roster can
be found at the Department of Justice website.
POSSESSION
It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or
who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient,
ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by
reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm. People
with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or
violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10
years of the conviction. A person who has been adjudicated
as a juvenile offender or delinquent for any offense which
would be classified as a felony or misdemeanor involving
force or violence if committed by an adult may not own or
possess any firearm until age 30. A minor may not possess
a handgun except with written permission or under the
supervision of a parent or guardian.
Within 60 days of bringing a pistol, revolver or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person into
this state, the person importing the firearm must complete
and return a Department of Justice registration form or
sell or transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer, or transfer
the gun to a sheriff or police department. Registration of
rifles and shotguns is not required.
If any person seeks to know whether they can possess
or purchase a firearm in California before a transfer is
made, they may request a Personal Firearms Eligibility
Check conducted by office of the Department of Justice.
A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless
they are accompanied by their parent or guardian while
participating in a legal recreation activity involving
firearms or has written permission to participate in
such activities. A minor under 16 may not possess live
ammunition except with the written permission or under
the supervision of a parent or guardian, or while going to
or from an organized lawful recreational or competitive
shooting activity or lawful hunting activity
“ASSAULT WEAPONS”, .50 CALIBER BMG RIFLES
AND MAGAZINES
It is unlawful to offer for sale, give or lend any “assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle. It is unlawful to possess
an “assault weapon” or a .50 caliber BMG rifle unless it
is properly registered with the state. The registration
period for “assault weapons” and .50 caliber BMG rifles
has ended. If an individual has an unregistered” assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle after the registration
period has ended, they must relinquish the firearm to law
enforcement. Anyone with a registered “assault weapon”
or .50 caliber BMG rifle wishing to legally dispose of the
firearm: can sell it to a dealer with an “assault weapons”
permit (for such firearms) and .50 caliber BMG rifle permit
(for such rifles); or with both type of permits; relinquish it
to local law enforcement (after making an appointment);
remove the “assault weapon” or .50 BMG caliber rifle
from the state or destroy it. Any person inheriting a
registered “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle has
90 days to render the weapon permanently inoperable,
sell to an approved firearms dealer, obtain a permit from
the Department of Justice to possess firearms, or move
the gun out of state. Pawning “assault weapons” and .50
caliber BMG rifles is not permitted.
California law defines “assault weapons” in three
ways:
• firearms listed on the original Roberti Roos assault
weapons law.
• any firearm that is in the AK and AR-15 - type
series.
• by the specific generic characteristics.
A further explanation of firearms considered
“assault weapons” can be found on the Department
of Justice website.
A person may lend a registered “assault weapon” or
a .50 caliber BMG caliber rifle to another person who is
18 years of age or over if the person to whom the “assault
weapon” is lent is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
and remains in the presence of the registered possessor,
and the “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle is
possessed at a licensed target range, or at the target range
of a public or private club organized for the purpose of
practicing shooting at targets, or at an exhibition, display
or education project sponsored by a law enforcement
agency or a nationally or state recognized firearms entity.
Persons moving into California must comply with the
provisions of the law before moving.
Unless otherwise specified, registered “assault
weapons” may only be possessed:
• at registrant’s residence, place of business, or other
property owned by such registrant, or on property
owned by another with permission.
• at certain recognized target ranges or shooting
clubs.
• at certain recognized exhibitions.
• while on publicly owned land upon which
possession and use of “assault weapons” is
specifically permitted by the managing agency.
• while transporting the assault weapon between
any of the places listed above, or to any licensed
gun dealer.
It is unlawful for any person who manufactures,
imports, or offers for sale, gives, or lends any ammunition
magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds (not
including .22 tube magazines). Exceptions include: a
loan of a lawfully possessed magazine to a person who is
not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition,
if such loan occurs at a place where possession of the
magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who
lends the magazine remains in the accessible vicinity to the
person to whom the magazine is loaned; the importation
of a magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully
took it out of the state and is returning to the state; the
sale or purchase of a magazine to or by a person licensed
to sell firearms; and the lending or giving of a magazine to
a licensed dealer or gunsmith for repair and its return to
its owner.
CARRYING AND TRANSPORTATION IN
VEHICLES
It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or
handgun in any public place or on any public street in
an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is
prohibited. In California, a firearm is considered loaded
if unexpended ammunition capable of being used in the
firearm is attached in any manner to the firearm. The
following persons and situations are exceptions:
• persons shooting on target ranges, or while hunting
on the premises of a shooting club.
• a person who reasonably believes that he or his
property is in immediate danger and the weapon
must be carried for “preservation.”1
• a person “engaged in the act of making or
attempting lawful arrest.”
• a person carrying a firearm while at home or at his
place of business, including temporary residences
and campsites.
Carrying a handgun concealed is prohibited without
a license. The law states “Firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.”
Carrying a handgun concealed within a vehicle is
prohibited without a license. A handgun carried in a glove
compartment or under the seat of a vehicle is considered
to be concealed. A handgun placed in the trunk of an
automobile, or locked in a container in the vehicle other
than the utility or glove compartment or while in a locked
container carried directly to or from a vehicle is deemed
not to be “concealed.” A locked container means a fully
enclosed secure container locked by a key lock or similar
locking device.
Exceptions to this prohibition are: members of clubs
organized for practice shooting while on any established
target range or going to and from such range; licensed
hunters and fishermen while engaged in hunting or
fishing and while going to or from such hunting or fishing
expeditions and members of an antique or historical
collector’s club while at a show, or while going to and from
a display as long as the weapons are locked in a trunk or
are in a locked container.
ANTIQUES AND REPLICAS
Antique firearm means any firearm not designed or
redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire ammunition and
manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system
or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before
1898) and also any firearm manufactured in or before 1898
using fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured
in the U.S. and is not readily available in the ordinary
channels of commercial trade.
MACHINE GUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS
A machine gun is defined as any firearm, which
shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by single function of
the trigger. The term also includes any conversion part,
frame or receiver of a machine gun, or any firearm deemed
as such by the federal government. Upon a showing of
good cause, a permit for possession and/or transportation
may be issued by the Department of Justice. It has been
CAUTION: Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation. This summary is not intended as legal advice or
restatement of law. This summary does not include federal or local laws, ordinances or regulations. For any particular situation, a
licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL
AND LOCAL.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
reported that the Department of Justice refuses to grant
such permits.
Possession of other firearms and related items is
unlawful and may be punished as either a misdemeanor
or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to:
• any firearm that is not immediately recognizable
as a firearm.
• any camouflaging firearm container.
• any ammunition that contains any flechette dart.
• any bullet containing or carrying an explosive
agent.
• any multiburst trigger activator.
• any short-barreled shotgun or rifle.
• any zip gun; and
• any unconventional pistol.
The following are some of the exceptions: possession
of short-barreled shotguns and rifles when authorized by
the Department of Justice and not in violation of federal
law; antique firearms, which are defined as: any firearm
not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire
ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898
(including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or
similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether
actually manufactured before 1898) and also any firearm
manufactured in or before 1898 using fixed ammunition
which is no longer manufactured in the U.S. and is not
readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial
trade; tracer ammunition for use in shotguns; and any
“curio or relic” or “any other weapon” as defined by federal
law possessed by a person who is otherwise permitted
to possess it under federal law and not prohibited from
possessing firearms and ammunition under California
law.
It is unlawful to possess a destructive device, including
tracer or incendiary ammunition or any firearm larger
than .60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any fixed
ammunition for such firearm. Excluded are shotguns and
shotgun ammunition.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
No license or permit shall be required to possess keep,
or carry a handgun openly or concealed in one’s home or
place of business.
The state legislature also has expressed its intention to
occupy the whole field of the regulation and licensing of
firearms, thus precluding cities and other localities from
enacting firearms laws.
It is unlawful to set any spring or “trap” gun.
It is unlawful to change, alter or remove the serial
number, maker’s name or other identifying mark from
any firearm, unless one has secured the written permission
of the Department of Justice. Possession of a firearm with
altered identifying marks creates a legal presumption that
the possessor committed the offense.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm on the grounds or
in the buildings of any school without permission of the
school authorities, or courthouse, State Capitol building
or grounds, any legislative office or the office or residence
of the Governor, constitutional officer or member of the
Legislature.
It is unlawful to possess, transport, or sell ammunition
principally for use in a handgun, which is “designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor.”
It is unlawful to store a loaded firearm where the
person knows or reasonably should know that a juvenile
under 16 is likely to gain access to the firearm without
the permission of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian
and the juvenile obtains access to the firearm and causes
death or great bodily harm to self or any other person.
This prohibition shall not apply if: the juvenile obtains
the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises
by any person; the firearm is kept in a locked container or
in a location which a reasonable person would believe to
be secure; the firearm is carried on the person or within
such a close proximity so that the individual can readily
retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person;
the firearm is equipped with a locking device; the person
is a peace officer or member of the U. S. Armed Forces
and the juvenile obtains the firearm during, or incidental
to, the performance of the person’s duties; the juvenile
obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful
act of self-defense or defense of another person; and the
person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premise which
is under person’s custody or control has no reasonable
expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances,
that a juvenile is likely to be present on the premise.
SOURCE: Cal. Penal Code §12020 et. seq.
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
'Any person' has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.
That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights listed by the 2nd Amendment.
U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:
(Story continues below)
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."
He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson
But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to "any person."
In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.
"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.
"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.
"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.
The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.
Any other determination, they said, would "offend" the Compact, officials said.
"[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government," they said.
It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn't created until years later, officials said.
"Some speak of a 'living constitution,' the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a 'living contract,' one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation," the group said.
Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.
Paul Clemen
The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
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."
'Any person' has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.
That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights listed by the 2nd Amendment.
U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:
(Story continues below)
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."
He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson
But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to "any person."
In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.
"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.
"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.
"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.
The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.
Any other determination, they said, would "offend" the Compact, officials said.
"[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government," they said.
It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn't created until years later, officials said.
"Some speak of a 'living constitution,' the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a 'living contract,' one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation," the group said.
Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.
Paul Clemen
The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
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."
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
GunNewsDaily.com
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
Ralph Weller
January 12, 2008
It's a dramatic headline, but from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter whether the D.C. case is a "win" or a "loss" for Second Amendment rights. Because, regardless of the ruling, the floodgates will open with Second Amendment lawsuits at the state level the likes of which we haven't seen in the history of this country. If you are a Second Amendment advocate, the next few years may be some of the most exciting years of your life from a constitutional rights standpoint.
But, the Heller case is only the beginning. If it's a win for Second Amendment supporters, there may be significant ambiguity in the decision. California, New York, Maryland and Illinois among other state level Second Amendment organizations will file lawsuits to force compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Liberal states will not willingly comply. Liberals never do unless it's to their advantage. Otherwise, they will simply ignore the ruling.
If it's a loss, and ends up being more of states rights ruling, again, there will be huge efforts in certain states, California included, to obtain gun rights with a state constitutional amendment or via state court rulings. In some cases legal efforts might have to be mounted just to save what little we have. We doubt the Supreme Court will rule that only state militias may be armed, but you never know these days. If the Supreme Court can find that abortions are protected by the Constitution, as crazy as it sounds, they could easily find that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. It's illogical, I know, but it is a possibility.
2008 will most likely be the best opportunity since our founding as a nation to help clarify exactly what constitutional right citizens have when it comes to firearms ownership. But, it is clear in conversations with legal experts, and they all agree, the legal fight will only begin after the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
Don't kid yourself into believing that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, let's say in favor of an individual right to own a firearm, that California will immediately comply and gut their gun laws that conflict with the ruling. Here are some examples:
If it is ruled a constitutional right, one must then question whether the state can charge a fee every time you purchase a firearm. Government cannot charge money to exercise a constitutional right.
If it is ruled a constitutional right, can California limit purchases to one gun per month?
If it is a constitutional right, can they call a semi-auto rifle an 'assault weapon' because it's black, while not banning other semi-auto rifles?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state ban the sale of certain rifles to the public, while allowing others to continue the right to own those rifles, if they pay a fee?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state say you can no longer sell or transfer your rifle to another person or family member, ever? And, if you die, can the state force your next of kin or executor of your estate to turn them in for destruction?
If it is a constitutional right, does the state have a right to register your handgun at the time of purchase?
If it is an constitutional right, can the state establish arbitrary testing methods to deem certain firearms 'unsafe' and non-sale able in California, while allowing state agencies, military, and law enforcement the right to to issue those firearms to their personnel?
If it is a right, can California ban the ownership of a semi-auto rifle simply because the caliber exceeds an arbitrary size?
If it is a right, and people in general are viewed as the militia, can the state ban the sale and ownership of fully automatic firearms used by the military and law enforcement?
And, here's a big one; If it is ruled a constitutional right, what powers, if any, do the states have to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms? If you are a strict constitutionalist, the state has no right to be in the business of regulating or limiting firearms ownership, or regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of restricting ownership. That then becomes the business of the federal government to protect Second Amendment rights, not limit it.
Again, using the Supreme Court ruling on abortions, (and no, we are not making a statement about whether abortion is right or wrong, but it is a case that shows the opposite extremes of the law) if the court can find it is a constitutional right as was found in Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in banning abortions, and limits their role in regulating them. Roe v. Wade overturned all state and local laws on abortion bans. It would then stand to reason that state and local governments have no authority to limit a constitutional right to firearms ownership and would limit their role in regulating their sale and ownership to some degree. But stranger things have happened.
Those questions, along with others, may end up in court in California as a result of a positive Heller ruling at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, it takes money and the best constitutional minds money can buy to carry the fight throughout the balance of 2008 and the next several years.
If you're a regular to Gun News Daily, we are not known to pander for money. That's not our style. You know best where to put your money with an organization that you feel best serves your interests. But, the Heller ruling will be special. It will be a defining point for state gun rights organizations. Despite the power of the NRA, GOA, SAF and other national organizations, they can't pursue all the state level lawsuits that must be filed. They simply can't afford it, nor do they have the legal resources to mount state level lawsuits across the land. This is where state gun rights organizations will pick up the ball and run. And, despite everything you hear, state gun rights organizations fight more legal battles at the state level than the NRA could ever handle. Sure, the NRA helps on some lawsuits, and takes the lead in others. But state organizations generally go about their business challenging gun laws at city, county and state venues, and you never hear about it. I hate to say this, but the NRA is very good at taking credit for their battles, while state organizations tend to stay pretty quiet about their conquests. They just don't get the credit they deserve, in any state, especially California.
If there was ever a time to get into the fight, there is one place you can put your money where you know it will be used to fight the upcoming legal battles in California. It's the California Rifle & Pistol Association. I urge each of you, member or not, to at least donate a sum that you can afford. If you're not a member, $22 a year to join is a cheap price to pay. If you don't live in California, you can join and donate. California gun laws are so convoluted and extensive, a positive ruling which starts in the California court system can most certainly have a positive or negative impact in your state. Don't think this is just for Californians. It's for everyone who cares about gun rights. Case law in one state can often be the foundation for rulings in other states.
And, here's the really good news. CRPA retains the brightest constitutional attorney in California, and possibly the United States, who is nationally recognized as an expert on Second Amendment rights. He is the attorney that fought San Francisco's handgun ban law last week in court representing CRPA, NRA, and other groups, and won. Chuck Michel and his law firm are the pit bulls of the legal world when it comes to civil rights. They know what they're doing and they have successfully stopped literally hundreds of onerous laws and restrictions at the state, county and city level within California over the past several years. We are very lucky to have a civil rights attorney so dedicated and knowledgeable living and working in our state.
If CRPA is to carry the fight forward, they need your support. Frankly, Gunowners of California is a great group as well. If you have some kind of problem with CRPA, give to Gunowners, but please give something to someone at the state level. CRPA is my organization. It's where I hang my hat. They're the biggest, with legal resources and a full time legislative advocate in Sacramento.
This will all be a very costly legal battle. But, there is power when hundreds, thousand or even tens-of-thousands take action in a small way. If ten thousand out of the estimated 10 million gun owners in California join CRPA at $22 a year, thats $220,000 a year. That's a lot of money to any state organization and a good start in launching a couple of major legal battles.
Each of us have an opportunity to not just read about history as it happens, but to help change it. So take advantage of it. Historical moments in time are very rare when it comes to constitutional rights. Millions upon millions of Americans have been born, lived a full life, then died, while never seeing a Second Amendment case go to the Supreme Court. That is how rare this case is.
I urge you to donate or join CRPA, or both, but please do something. Money is needed and legal preparations for the upcoming battles are already underway. CRPA is way ahead of the curve on this because they know what is coming after Heller is history. But it needs to start today, and it needs to start with each of you. Don't be afraid to donate multiple times throughout the year. If you can afford it, donate a small sum monthly. Every donation, no matter the size, whether it's $10 or $100 is important. Use your credit card, debit card or send a check. Please donate to change history.
If you want to drop me a line to let me know you joined or donated, I would be delighted to hear from you. You can contact me at rweller49@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you. And pass this page along to your shooting friends and other gun rights activists and let's start building momentum for the future.
Join California Rifle & Pistol Association
Donate to California Rifle & Pistol Association
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
Ralph Weller
January 12, 2008
It's a dramatic headline, but from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter whether the D.C. case is a "win" or a "loss" for Second Amendment rights. Because, regardless of the ruling, the floodgates will open with Second Amendment lawsuits at the state level the likes of which we haven't seen in the history of this country. If you are a Second Amendment advocate, the next few years may be some of the most exciting years of your life from a constitutional rights standpoint.
But, the Heller case is only the beginning. If it's a win for Second Amendment supporters, there may be significant ambiguity in the decision. California, New York, Maryland and Illinois among other state level Second Amendment organizations will file lawsuits to force compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Liberal states will not willingly comply. Liberals never do unless it's to their advantage. Otherwise, they will simply ignore the ruling.
If it's a loss, and ends up being more of states rights ruling, again, there will be huge efforts in certain states, California included, to obtain gun rights with a state constitutional amendment or via state court rulings. In some cases legal efforts might have to be mounted just to save what little we have. We doubt the Supreme Court will rule that only state militias may be armed, but you never know these days. If the Supreme Court can find that abortions are protected by the Constitution, as crazy as it sounds, they could easily find that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. It's illogical, I know, but it is a possibility.
2008 will most likely be the best opportunity since our founding as a nation to help clarify exactly what constitutional right citizens have when it comes to firearms ownership. But, it is clear in conversations with legal experts, and they all agree, the legal fight will only begin after the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
Don't kid yourself into believing that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, let's say in favor of an individual right to own a firearm, that California will immediately comply and gut their gun laws that conflict with the ruling. Here are some examples:
If it is ruled a constitutional right, one must then question whether the state can charge a fee every time you purchase a firearm. Government cannot charge money to exercise a constitutional right.
If it is ruled a constitutional right, can California limit purchases to one gun per month?
If it is a constitutional right, can they call a semi-auto rifle an 'assault weapon' because it's black, while not banning other semi-auto rifles?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state ban the sale of certain rifles to the public, while allowing others to continue the right to own those rifles, if they pay a fee?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state say you can no longer sell or transfer your rifle to another person or family member, ever? And, if you die, can the state force your next of kin or executor of your estate to turn them in for destruction?
If it is a constitutional right, does the state have a right to register your handgun at the time of purchase?
If it is an constitutional right, can the state establish arbitrary testing methods to deem certain firearms 'unsafe' and non-sale able in California, while allowing state agencies, military, and law enforcement the right to to issue those firearms to their personnel?
If it is a right, can California ban the ownership of a semi-auto rifle simply because the caliber exceeds an arbitrary size?
If it is a right, and people in general are viewed as the militia, can the state ban the sale and ownership of fully automatic firearms used by the military and law enforcement?
And, here's a big one; If it is ruled a constitutional right, what powers, if any, do the states have to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms? If you are a strict constitutionalist, the state has no right to be in the business of regulating or limiting firearms ownership, or regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of restricting ownership. That then becomes the business of the federal government to protect Second Amendment rights, not limit it.
Again, using the Supreme Court ruling on abortions, (and no, we are not making a statement about whether abortion is right or wrong, but it is a case that shows the opposite extremes of the law) if the court can find it is a constitutional right as was found in Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in banning abortions, and limits their role in regulating them. Roe v. Wade overturned all state and local laws on abortion bans. It would then stand to reason that state and local governments have no authority to limit a constitutional right to firearms ownership and would limit their role in regulating their sale and ownership to some degree. But stranger things have happened.
Those questions, along with others, may end up in court in California as a result of a positive Heller ruling at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, it takes money and the best constitutional minds money can buy to carry the fight throughout the balance of 2008 and the next several years.
If you're a regular to Gun News Daily, we are not known to pander for money. That's not our style. You know best where to put your money with an organization that you feel best serves your interests. But, the Heller ruling will be special. It will be a defining point for state gun rights organizations. Despite the power of the NRA, GOA, SAF and other national organizations, they can't pursue all the state level lawsuits that must be filed. They simply can't afford it, nor do they have the legal resources to mount state level lawsuits across the land. This is where state gun rights organizations will pick up the ball and run. And, despite everything you hear, state gun rights organizations fight more legal battles at the state level than the NRA could ever handle. Sure, the NRA helps on some lawsuits, and takes the lead in others. But state organizations generally go about their business challenging gun laws at city, county and state venues, and you never hear about it. I hate to say this, but the NRA is very good at taking credit for their battles, while state organizations tend to stay pretty quiet about their conquests. They just don't get the credit they deserve, in any state, especially California.
If there was ever a time to get into the fight, there is one place you can put your money where you know it will be used to fight the upcoming legal battles in California. It's the California Rifle & Pistol Association. I urge each of you, member or not, to at least donate a sum that you can afford. If you're not a member, $22 a year to join is a cheap price to pay. If you don't live in California, you can join and donate. California gun laws are so convoluted and extensive, a positive ruling which starts in the California court system can most certainly have a positive or negative impact in your state. Don't think this is just for Californians. It's for everyone who cares about gun rights. Case law in one state can often be the foundation for rulings in other states.
And, here's the really good news. CRPA retains the brightest constitutional attorney in California, and possibly the United States, who is nationally recognized as an expert on Second Amendment rights. He is the attorney that fought San Francisco's handgun ban law last week in court representing CRPA, NRA, and other groups, and won. Chuck Michel and his law firm are the pit bulls of the legal world when it comes to civil rights. They know what they're doing and they have successfully stopped literally hundreds of onerous laws and restrictions at the state, county and city level within California over the past several years. We are very lucky to have a civil rights attorney so dedicated and knowledgeable living and working in our state.
If CRPA is to carry the fight forward, they need your support. Frankly, Gunowners of California is a great group as well. If you have some kind of problem with CRPA, give to Gunowners, but please give something to someone at the state level. CRPA is my organization. It's where I hang my hat. They're the biggest, with legal resources and a full time legislative advocate in Sacramento.
This will all be a very costly legal battle. But, there is power when hundreds, thousand or even tens-of-thousands take action in a small way. If ten thousand out of the estimated 10 million gun owners in California join CRPA at $22 a year, thats $220,000 a year. That's a lot of money to any state organization and a good start in launching a couple of major legal battles.
Each of us have an opportunity to not just read about history as it happens, but to help change it. So take advantage of it. Historical moments in time are very rare when it comes to constitutional rights. Millions upon millions of Americans have been born, lived a full life, then died, while never seeing a Second Amendment case go to the Supreme Court. That is how rare this case is.
I urge you to donate or join CRPA, or both, but please do something. Money is needed and legal preparations for the upcoming battles are already underway. CRPA is way ahead of the curve on this because they know what is coming after Heller is history. But it needs to start today, and it needs to start with each of you. Don't be afraid to donate multiple times throughout the year. If you can afford it, donate a small sum monthly. Every donation, no matter the size, whether it's $10 or $100 is important. Use your credit card, debit card or send a check. Please donate to change history.
If you want to drop me a line to let me know you joined or donated, I would be delighted to hear from you. You can contact me at rweller49@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you. And pass this page along to your shooting friends and other gun rights activists and let's start building momentum for the future.
Join California Rifle & Pistol Association
Donate to California Rifle & Pistol Association
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
