Alan Gura, the successful Constitutional Attornery who won the DC vs. Heller case said today on Glen Beck that, the individual states can then set their own gun laws. I remember immediately if not sooner, that the DC courts made any gun owners keep their weapons in many parts. So, if you needed to protect yourself against a break-in, you had to first put your gun together first. Gura claimed, as well as Beck, that everywhere “gun bans” are in force, crime went up tenfold. I admire and respect Gura for now taking his success from DC to Chicago, and then hopefully onto NY, however, I also heard today that Obama and the Progressives want to appoint something like 70 more Federal Judges. I remember well that Bush had a slew of people that were waiting forever to get confirmed as Judges. I will bet that Obama’s judges are rushed through.

When you say that Sotomayor will have “a lot of explaining to do” if she decides a certain way on this case, that is just wishful thinking.

The facts are, for her and any other member of the SCOTUS, they don’t have to explain or justify jack squat to anyone, once they are past Senate confirmation.

Now, if you wanted to say that Obama’s future nominees will have more explaining to do based on how his first one rules, then I could buy that.

Thank you so much for the report. Now if we can just have Chicago lose its bid for the Olympics I’ll believe again.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

The mix on the SC is still the same as when the DC gun ban case was decided. Whatever Sotomayor has to offer in comments/opinions/decisions won’t change the prior DC ruling. She may make a fool of herself, and, that would be expected based on her previous rulings. I understand that the case will probably not be ruled on for a year. Let’s pray for the health of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Soto will prove to be a partisan political appointment, and one of the most fraudulent appointments in years. Then again, there hasn’t been much about this current president that hasn’t already been proven to be fraduluent, and more than a little dishonest.

Even if the court overturns Chicago’s gun ban, I have little doubt that the prevailing opinion will reiterate the fact that local and state entities retain the right to regulate firearms, even if they cannot ban them outright.

And all the legitimate arguments concerning gun control and its effects on violent crime amount to opinion…… that the left really just doesn’t want to hear. They do not carry the force of law. So guns will no doubt still be regulated to an extent that makes gun ownership such a pain in the butt that only a small percentage of people will be willing to jump through the necessary hoops.

And, of course, they’ll still, no doubt, be able to ban “certain” guns. You know, the scary ones, with detachable magazines that you don’t have to cock each time you pull the trigger. The “black rifles”.

I think it’s about time we started hollering “racism” every time someone puts forth a bill to ban “black rifles”.

That RIGHT is reserved for Democrats and other liberals!

I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the SCOTUS can decide about the constitutionality of Texas sodomy laws, yet not sure about “infringement” of something spelled out in the US Constitution.

“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining
whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in
the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Caution: liberals will try to derail this conversation by changing the subject to sodomy, or homosexuality, or accusing conservatives of engaging in same. Whenever they change the subject, it is a signal that they realize they just lost the argument. Watch. They will even argue this point, about whether this is an “argument”, or anything to avoid the point being discussed.

Particularly this point, because DC vs. Heller did exactly this, and it is why I continue to encourage people to follow the links in my signature line:

The Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, moved the battle over gun rights from the legislatures to the courts. That set the stage for gun owners to enter the judicial wars. The decision to review McDonald puts the future of gun rights back squarely in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the conviction among gun owners that their fate is now in the hands of judges and that their continued involvement in the judicial confirmation process is vital.

There is nothing more vital than the participation of the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country, particularly at the state and local levels. The NRA and its legal arm, the NRA-ILA are the single best sources for national (and often state and local) information, but they’re no substitute for being engaged in your communities, aware of who is running for what, and being willing to make your voice heard.

D.C. vs. Heller wasn’t an endpoint, it was a beginning — it altered the landscape of 2nd Amendment activism and it’s important that people don’t wipe their brows and think, “Well, that finished it. Now I can go back to not being too involved, not keeping my NRA membership current, not attending meetings at my local gun club, not examining the records of the local and state politicians up for election, not caring about who my judges are.” In fact just the opposite is true.