I thought you would find this piece by Steve Chapman interesting:

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate — the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.

--------------------------------
“Close your eyes, it can’t happen here…” (California Uber Alles, Dead Kennedys)

Genocide is the boomerang crime: as hard as we try to throw it away, it just keeps coming back.

Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment is a frontier anachronism best swept under the rug or apologized for at smart cocktail parties need look no further than recent actions by elected U.S. senators and congressmen to see why the Second Amendment is now and always will remain relevant for the defense of life and liberty:

In his recent book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," journalist Jeff Sharlet exposed ties between “The Family,” a lobbying organization disguised as a prayer support group, and currently elected members of Congress. He went further and also showed links between The Family and new legislation in Uganda that would make homosexual behavior a crime punishable by death.

In short, the Ugandan law is nothing short of genocide, a genocide backed and enabled by The Family and those members of Congress who belong to it.

According to The Raw Story:

“Sharlet reveals that David Bahati, the Uganda legislator backing the bill, reportedly first floated the idea of executing gays during The Family's Uganda National Prayer Breakfast in 2008.”

Worse, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appears to have been there in person when the plans for genocide were hatched—at a "prayer breakfast," no less.

Rachel Maddow’s December 9th interview (embedded below) with James Sharlet details the strong ties between the U.S.-based Family, the Ugandan branch of The Family, and the kill-the-gays legislation. As Maddow implies, even for members of The Family (and Congress!) not actively supporting this, silence implies more than consent:

“We have talked to the offices of a number of elected officials, conservative politicians here in the U.S. associated with The Family, and while a number of them have told us they’re against this bill none has said they will do anything publicly to stop it,” says Maddow.

In addition to Inhofe’s involvement, some members of Congress apparently live at reduced rent rates or free in The Family’s compound in D.C. It's impossible to see how you could live rent-free with an organization and then claim not to be supporting its goals, or to claim you aren't in any way responsible for its actions. Members of The Family are NOT restricted to far right Republicans—Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) has lived in the shadowy group’s house for seven years.

Despite the The Family’s links to genocide in Uganda, at this writing President Obama himself is scheduled to speak before The Family’s National Prayer Breakfast in February 2010. Such is the influence of money and power in Washington that the president himself—an alleged friend of gays and gay rights—will be speaking before a group actively engaged in rounding them up and murdering them in plain view of the world.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment. If you think Senator Inhofe and other elected American leaders working for genocide in African wouldn’t do the same thing in America if they could, you are deluded. If you think Americans couldn’t be cowed into going along, or turning a blind eye, the lessons of history—even in our own country—strongly indicate otherwise.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting; it’s not really even about protecting yourself from burglars or assault. The Second Amendment is about never having to worry about the midnight knock at the door when they come for you, your loved ones or your neighbors. It’s best we remember that, especially when we see our elected officials working to create death camps right before our eyes.

Molon Labe.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Previously posted on Blue Steel Democrats.)

--------------------------------------------------

TIME TO EXIT FROM NEW JERSEY GUN RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION

If you’re a gun rights activist looking for a scary Halloween costume, consider dressing up as New Jersey Appellate Court Judge Stephen Skillman, who this week upheld a de facto ban on handgun ownership in New Jersey. Skillman’s frightening decision contradicts last year’s Heller decision, current New Jersey law, and even the English language.

The case in question is that of Anthony Dubov, who applied for a permit to own a handgun under New Jersey’s “shall issue” laws but was turned down by his local chief of police without explanation—conduct condoned and upheld by Judge Skillman despite clear legal protections for Dubov’s right to own a handgun under current New Jersey law.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND: SHALL VS. MAY

Unlike the majority of states, New Jersey requires a license for mere ownership of handguns. Last year’s Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court decision established that federal jurisdictions, e.g. District of Columbia, must allow handgun ownership but may require citizens to first obtain permits to own guns as long as these requirements are “not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.” What that should mean is to solidify the “shall issue” concept as a Constitutional right that federal law cannot infringe. In other words, under the Heller decision, handgun license requirements were upheld but only so long as they are fair and do not amount to total bans.

The Heller decision was applied only to federal law, not state law. However, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case this winter (McDonald v. City of Chicago) which will likely result in local bans on firearms ownership or restrictions no different than bans also being declared unconstitutional.

Of those states that currently require permits for gun ownership, there are two kinds of laws: “shall issue” and “may issue.” Under a “shall issue” law, anyone who applies for a permit must be granted one unless he is disqualified for a legitimate reason, such as a criminal conviction. Under a “may issue” law, it is left up to the local authorities to decide whether or not to grant the permit. It’s fair to say that “may issue” laws (which have historically been used to deny immigrants and minorities the rights of self defense) are by their very nature “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore unconstitutional under the Heller decision. By the same logic, “shall issue” laws that are actually enforced as if they were “may issue” laws should also be illegal.

To help clarify this, lawyers arguing the McDonald v. City of Chicago case should argue this point; because, as will be seen, just because a “shall issue” law is on the books doesn’t mean local authorities or courts will respect it.

NEW JERSEY AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

New Jersey is, technically, a “shall issue” state when it comes to permits to own a handgun. (Note, this is a requirement merely to own a firearm, not to carry one.) The New Jersey law says this:

“No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth [exceptions for criminal records and related behavior]”

Seems like pretty clear language, right? Apparently not for Judge Stillman. In the case referred to as The Matter of Anthony Dubov, Judge Stillman upheld the decision of East Windsor Chief of Police William Spain to deny Dubov a handgun permit without offering any explanation. Dubov was originally granted the permit by an appeals court which held that Chief Spain violated state law, i.e. the “shall issue” phrase. However, Stillman’s decision reversed that court and held that since Heller does not apply to states, the matter is moot, and the state can deny Dubov a handgun permit.

This decision is especially odd since in his decision Judge Stillman quote the New Jersey statute that allows for people denied handgun permits for no specified reason to challenge the decision in court:

“The Legislature's goal was to keep guns out of the hands of unfit persons. To that end it disqualified certain classes which quickly come to mind. To guard against inadvertent omissions, it delegated authority to appropriately designated officials to disqualify any unfit individuals who, though not strictly within the enumerated classes, should not in the public interest be entrusted with firearms. To guard against arbitrary official action the Legislature directed early determination and provided for easy appeal to the county court . . .Review from the county court is readily available in the Appellate Division and, when necessary, in this Court. As has been pointed out elsewhere, these safeguards are probably of greater significance than further details in the statutory standard.”

Despite showing his ability to copy block text from a statute into a decision, in denying Dubov’s application without asking for any testimony or justification from Chief of Police Spain, Judge Stillman showed little ability or inclination to read the text.

This twisted logic, which ignores clear New Jersey law, regardless of how Heller is intepreted, shows the dangers of leaving Constitutional rights under the protection of local authorities. A national standard to protect gun owners is what is needed, and hopefully such will be included in the McDonald vs. City of Chicago arguments and decision early in 2010.

--------------------

In welcome news this morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the potentially far-reaching Second Amendment case of “McDonald vs. City of Chicago.” At issue is whether last year’s historic Heller vs. District of Columbia decision affirming the individual right to bear arms also applies to state law, a doctrine known as “incorporation.” The Court said it will hear the case this coming January or February.

But the case also presents opportunities to expand all civil liberties, not just Second Amendment rights. As Doug Kendall of the progressive think tank, the Constitutional Accountability Center, noted in their recent brief supporting McDonald:

“McDonald v. City of Chicago is about more than guns: it is about whether the Court will restore the precise constitutional text that requires states to honor the fundamental rights of all Americans.”

Background:

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed the civil right of citizens to keep loaded handguns “at the ready” in their homes. However, the ruling specifically said that their decision applied only to federal, not state law.

Writing for the majority in favor of Second Amendment rights, Justice Scalia said:

“It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s [Washington, D.C.] total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.”

The McDonald case has the potential to solidify the Heller ruling and, hopefully, strike down once and for all restrictive state or city ordinances that amount to total handgun bans, as well as laws that insist that handguns must be stored in a “nonfunctional” state, e.g. in a safe or with trigger locks in place. (Note: If you have kids around the house, use common sense about the relative risks of home invasion vs. curious young hands.)

All five of the justices who supported last year’s Heller decision are still serving, with the addition of Justice Sonya Sotomayor (recently appointed by President Obama) whom we expect to join with the majority in applying the Second Amendment rights and protections to the states.

Arbitrary and Capricious

Chicago’s handgun ban was instituted in early 80s during the anti-gun sentiment following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Local feelings about the law are mixed, but there is no evidence that the law’s intent of lowering violent crime has worked in any way. Chicago residents face up to a year in jail as well as fines for mere possession of a handgun.

However, like most gun prohibitions, the law has not been uniformly or equitably enforced, as was shown in 1994 when Illinois state senator Rickey Hendon, representing west Chicago, reported a handgun stolen from a burglary but was not prosecuted for owning it. This is clear evidence that enforcement of the ban is both “arbitrary and capricious” (see below). We suspect lawyers arguing the case will find more instances of inequity without having to look very hard.

Earlier this year, gun rights activists became especially concerned after another far-reaching gun control bill, The Blair Holt Bill, was introduced to a chilly reception in Congress by Chicago Congressman, Bobby Rush. Rush’s bill included conditions for gun ownership, such as a requirement that guns be disassembled while not in use, that would be unconstitutional if the Heller decision is applied to the states.

Modest Change

If the Supreme Court determines that citizens of all states have the same inalienable rights to self-defense and firearms ownership, it will not result in a complete overhaul of all state restrictions. In the Heller ruling, the Supreme Court listed a number of permissible restrictions which it seemed to leave up to local jurisdictions to decide for themselves.

Quoting from the Heller decision, these restrictions include the following:

• “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”
• “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
• “concealed weapons prohibitions”
• “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”

The Heller decision also upholds governments’ right to require registration or licensing:

“Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

 While the court does not require any of these listed restrictions, in the tradition of federalism it leaves the door open to local sentiment and control within specified bounds as long as they are well short of de jure or de facto bans. This is in line with the emerging policy of the Obama administration, which favors federalism and local control in matters of firearms policy. AHSA believes this approach is in the best tradition of our federal system; but we would also argue that state-level pre-emption laws that apply a single legal standard throughout a state are better than a patchwork of confusing and draconian local laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who innocently cross unmarked or unposted boundaries.

Our bet is that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of gun owners and of the original intent of the founders of our republic by incorporating the Second Amendment to apply to all jurisdictions. If you have an FFL in the Chicago area, you can expect some new customers come this spring.