Manufactured Outrage

Leftist Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the newly created University of California, Irvine School of Law is an interesting fellow. Not because he is described as a constitutional law expert, but because of his manufactured outrage when it comes to judicial activism:

The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

Never before had the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.

And the article goes on like this in a relatively uneducated line of thinking.

What's humorous is that the generally accepted view of judicial activism is that such activism creates rights or constitutional violations out of thin air without regard to the Constitution. Regardless of your position on the issues, such creation of rights existed with issues such as abortion and as with gay marriage: courts magically created these rights out of thin air without any Constitutional citation. It's hard to interpret the Second Amendment as it is written and say that such right is being created out.

It seems like a lot of Chemerinsky's beef seems to be that the court in Heller overruled precedent. And I have always found the reliance on precedent to be a very lame-ass, weak-kneed concept. If Courts rely on precedent, particularly when precedent is wrong, that does not help propagate the Constitutional rights of anybody. This is something I wrote about last November in another article regarding guns:

Lasson also completely whiffs on the concept or precedence. Under Lasson's worldview, the Supreme Court's decision in 1939's United States v. Miller is sacrosanct on the issue and cannot be challenged. Of course, there are a number of fallacies with the concept of precedence. Why should a decision be continued to upheld when it is wrong? Under Lasson's warped logic that means that Brown vs. Board should never have been issued as it stood due to the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. And under the same logic, Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman would have precluded the decision in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut...and that case paved the way for Roe v. Wade . I don't hear Lasson arguing the concept of precedence in those cases because the decisions do not match with his leftist worldviews.

And Chemerinsky's argument follows the same predictable mad leftist ranting.

It concerns me that Chemerinsky has been tasked to start a new law school as it's dean, mainly because I worry that there will be more lawyers manufacturing synthetic outrage while misinterpreting the role of the court in society and threatening our basic Constitutional rights as Americans...

A Reasonable Liberal Interpretation of Heller

Bruce Godfrey has a very well thought-out liberal take on the decision is D.C. v. Heller, in support of the Court's decision. And just as importantly, Bruce points out one of the real reasons liberals favor gun control to the extent they do:

I don't like "gun culture;" accordingly, I elect not to participate in it, just like I don't participate in tattoo culture or other subcultures. But my and other liberals' dislikes should absolutely not be the law. I think that a lot of the gun control movement involves a sort of Kulturkampf against the rural redneck, far more so than against the urban thug who can arm himself easily despite gun control laws. We do not need "guns off the streets"; we need thugs off the streets and one way to reduce thuggery is to add an aleatory risk of dying or (worse) getting shot in the groin to thug calculus. A few thugs will stop thugging; others will stop when shot; still others will revert to mere property crimes like shed breaking or stealing car stereos.

Read the whole thing. But I think Bruce makes an excellent point when he talks about the liberal disdain for rural culture, which probably reached it's apex during the Democratic Primary when Barack Obama made his asinine comments about people in small towns, guns, and religion. It seems to me that the preponderance of liberals use issues like God, community, and guns to look down their noses on people who choose not to drink the urban liberal Kool-Aid. These liberals choose to discriminate against those living in the South and living in small towns. And the rabid opposition to the right of self-defense is just one way in which that manifests itself.

Post-Heller, the work starts now

Obviously, everybody has heard by now the fantastic news about the Supreme Court upholding the lower court decision in D.C. v. Heller. Here is the best part of the Opinion of the Court, on Page 67 of the decision:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Once and for all, the Supreme Court has affirmed while most people knew all along: that the United States Constitution unquestionable affirms the right of individuals the opportunity to bear arms. Of course, this decision should not have been a surprise seeing that the founders considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right dating back to English Common Law and the Assize of Arms of 1189. Something that Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog points out the Court included in their decision:

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Nor is it a surprise when one considers that all of the other Amendments within the Bill of Rights are affirming individual rights, but hey....

But supporters of the Constitution should not sit back and rest on our laurels. Yes, the Heller decision does affirm the the individual right of the citizen. However, Dave Kopel notes that there are many areas of law that are not addressed by Heller:

As for the constitutionality of other gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The word “commercial” in the last sentence could suggest that there might be constitutional problems on some laws which applied to non-commercial arms transfers. (However, there are few federal laws on non-commercial transfers, other than criminal penalties for transferring guns to prohibited persons.)

The majority opinion also affirmed the validity of bans on gun carrying in “sensitive” locations such as schools and government buildings. The language may imply that a total ban on gun carrying in ordinary public places is unconstitutional. But Heller does not attempt to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, and most carrying restrictions in public places are created by state and local governments. For now, Heller limits only the federal government — and entities such as the D.C. City Council, whose powers are granted by the federal government.

Which means that while the individual right has been affirmed, Heller does not universally cast aside any and all gun controls laws. Nor does the decision cast aside provisions that prohibit the purchase of firearms by criminals or those with mental issues. The rights of gun ownership and possession in Maryland have been left, realistically, unchanged by the facts of the decision. Since the Heller decision only the D.C. law, that means many issues are still living in a Constitutional shade of gray.

How would this Court rule on issues such as Concealed Carry permits? What about Waiting Periods? What about trigger lock laws? The fact of the matter is that now the right to own a firearm has be universally affirmed once and for all by the Court, we now must move on to address these other issues as a nation.

Nowhere is that more true than here in Maryland. We must fight the nonsensical gun laws that remain on the books. We must combat nonsensical politicians like Delegate Curt Anderson who wish to use the Court's affirmation of this civil right as a reason to pass even more restrictive gun laws in Maryland. We need to bring Maryland into the 21st Century, and pass appropriate concealed carry laws. These laws have reduced the rates of violent crime in the 40 states that have now passed them. The stats are there, and no type of cockamamie arguments from politicians like Anderson can change the fact that these common sense carry laws save lives. Liberals can be entitled to their opinions on the issue, but not their own facts.

The Heller decision is a great victory for the Constitution, and a great day for liberty in America. However, we in Maryland have a long way to go to fully enjoy the fruits of this victory. The work starts now.

Hypocrisy in Action

A Sun editorial on the oral arguments from yesterdays District of Columbia v. Heller hearing had this gem:

Outlawing a city's ban on handguns would unfairly strip citizens of their collective ability to make their communities safer.

Of course, does not a city's ban on handguns also unfairly strip citizens of their individual ability to make their families and property safer? Of course it does, but the mental midgets on the Sun editorial board don't see it that way. They see gun ownership as a collective right; the only piece of the Bill of Rights, incidentally, that they see as a collective right. Because I have a feeling that a city banning a third-rate newspaper that serves as the propaganda arm of one of the major parties to allow citizens the collective ability to get lies and deceit off of the street is going to get a lot of support from the Sun's board.

Fortunately, it looks like the Supreme Court is leaning towards doing the right thing...

Attention Getter

If there is one thing that Orioles OF Luke Scott (left) is known for, it has little do with his baseball prowess. Acquired from Houston in the Miguel Tejada trade, people know Scott less for the fact that he hit 31 homers for Round Rock in the Pacific Coast League in 2005, and more for the fact that Scott chooses to avail himself of a fundamental Constitutional right.

So it was probably only a matter of time before we saw a story like this from Sun reporter Jeff Zrebiec:

Orioles manager Dave Trembley knew about the intensity, all-out hustle and powerful uppercut swing. But he still had one question about his new left fielder, so he approached Luke Scott while Scott was shagging fly balls last week.

"Talk to me about the gun situation," Trembley said to Scott.

Trembley, who has never fired a gun and joked that he wouldn't know the difference between a water pistol and a BB gun, had read about Scott's thoughts on gun control and about how the player almost always carries a concealed firearm...

..."He very quickly said to me, 'Second Amendment, right to bear arms,' " Trembley recalled. "He said it's not a big deal. He'll never have one here. To me, it's a nonissue."

Obviously it's an issue to somebody on Calvert Street, or else the story would not have wound up in the paper.

To be fair to Zrebiec, he at least went out to detail some of the reasons that ballplayers just might want to be prepared to defend themselves:

[Nick] Markakis said he was at a gas station in Georgia five or six years ago when somebody who was armed tried to force his way into his truck. Markakis, who didn't have a gun in his car, got away unscathed, but the day left an impression on him.

A similar incident helped persuade Scott to obtain a handgun. Scott, then a student at Indian River (Fla.) Community College, was at a party in Delray Beach when somebody pulled a gun on him....

....Scott told of one situation several years back when he was at a Houston gas station and was confronted by a man carrying a shank.

"I didn't pull my gun on him," Scott said. "I would have if he had gotten close enough, and I would have shot him if he wouldn't have backed off. But all I had to do was lift up my shirt and put my hand on [the gun] and I said, 'Can I help you?' He stopped in his tracks. Who knows what that saved me?

Scott's position on guns was also chronicled a few years back on an ESPN story about athletes and guns.

I take solace in the fact that ballplayers are exercising their Constitutional rights and that the Orioles have several players like Scott, Markakis, and Jamie Walker who are willing to speak out about their experiences and why they choose to protect themselves. I just find it somewhat puzzling that the story about Scott's outspoken view on gun rights and self-defense drew attention now, in the middle of Spring Training, as opposed to back in December when the trade happened.

Crime Fighting by Press Conference

Well, this charade did little to solve gun violence in Baltimore:

The mayors of Baltimore and New York announced Wednesday that the two cities will start sharing information about illegal weapons they seize, creating a database that gets around a congressionally imposed restriction on information local departments can obtain about guns seized outside their borders.

Federal law gives cities only limited access to the national database that tracks guns used in crimes. The mayors hope that other cities along the Interstate 95 corridor will sign on, and by sharing the information they will be able to spot trends in regional gun trafficking that they say are invisible to them under the current system.

"This is the kind of system that the federal government should be doing, but they aren't," said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, speaking at a news conference in the atrium of City Hall. "Cities are fighting crime in isolation. Congress has a treasure trove of data and we are not allowed to see it."

So....how is this going to stop people from being killed in our streets? It's not. The use of "illegal guns" by criminals in an illegal fashion is still illegal. Do these liberals really think that by sharing data that they are going to "solve" the use of illegal guns?

If the mayors of these cities, which does include the violence-plagued cities of Baltimore and Annapolis, are so hellbent on fixing crime, let's actually see something done to fix the problem. Change policing strategies. Get tough on crime. Encourage vigorous prosecution of accused criminals. Implement Project EXILE. And don't do dumb stuff like buy Segways like they did in Annapolis at the expense of actual crime fighting. Our friend Brian Gill has numerous examples of the idiocy in crime-fighting in Annapolis.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is not interested in solving crime, but is merely a fringe group in favor of further restricting the rights of honest Americans to own firearms. Their discussion of "illegal guns" is nothing more than trying to put lipstick on the pig that is their crime fighting strategies. Many of the cities involved with Bloomberg and his cronies have severe crime problems. Maybe if they spent less time having press conferences and more time trying to fix the problems in their cities, these "illegal guns" wouldn't make as much of a difference...

Because clearly the gun acted alone

The Sun this morning once again blames violence not on criminal psychopaths, but on an inanimate object:

A great deal is not yet known about the horrific quadruple murders in Cockeysville that have led police to charge a 15-year-old honor student with murdering his parents and two younger brothers. But this much is clear: The presence of a gun in the house did not protect the Browning family; it put them at a greater risk of violence.

That's a pretty cool leap in logic. The Sun basically says "we don't know enough, but we know enough to know that it was the gun's fault." Never mind the fact that the presence of a knife, hatchet, sledgehammer, or other large sharp or blunt object could have come to the same result.

Baltimore County police say Nicholas W. Browning used his father's handgun to kill his family on Friday night. While such familicide is hardly common, numerous studies have shown that having a gun in the home can be exceedingly dangerous. In fact, a firearm is far more likely to be used to shoot a family member or acquaintance than to defend the home against an intruder.

Of course, there are also numerous studies that show such ideas are poppycock.

We do not advocate the banning of all guns, but there are measures government can take to reduce their risk. Maryland has a law requiring adults to store guns in a place that is inaccessible to children. Perhaps that rather open-ended and rarely enforced requirement needs to be strengthened.

First off, I do not believe for a second that the Sun editorial board does not want to ban all guns, given some of their past editorial stances. However, the Orwellian nature of their next sentence (because lord only knows how they want to enforce this gun storage law otherwise) is immediately negated by their next comment.

Such legislation wouldn't necessarily have spared the Brownings, of course.

So what the hell are we arguing about? Gun laws such as the ones the Sun wants to enforce would not have prevented this instance of violence. Nor, potentially, would a ban on guns either given the number of other dangerous objects available to folks inside the home

Clearly the circumstances of this murder are tragic and sad. However, the Sun's rush to judgment is amazingly short sighted and well beneath the standard of a newspaper that considers itself a "major" daily.

Misfiring on all cylinders

University of Baltimore Law Professor Kenneth Lasson goes on a predictably leftist, completely unscholarly tirade about the 2nd Amendment in the Sun this morning. And after this complete reinterpretation of the concept of precedent, he drops this gem:

The justices should recognize that law professors are not always straight shooters.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Because Lasson drapes his warped views on the subject around nothing but his own background as a hack masquerading as a law professor.

The main problem I have with Lasson's arguments is the fact that he only gives one side of the story. He wishes to talk about the financial backing of the NRA without adequately exploring the financial backing of gun grabber groups like the Brady Campaign. What about Michael Bloomberg's illegal campaign to fight firearms? Yeah, no mention of that.

Nor did Lasson mention his work as an "Expert" for the Second Amendment Research Center. That outfit is supported by The Joyce Foundation, an outfit with a notorious anti-gun bias, and whose grant list includes grants to both the Bloombergers, Handgun-Free America, and the Violence Policy Center, which of course supports the outright ban on handgun ownership amongst other out there policies. Lasson's cover-up of his affiliations (and the Sun letting him get away with it) is appalling.

Lasson also completely whiffs on the concept or precedence. Under Lasson's worldview, the Supreme Court's decision in 1939's United States v. Miller is sacrosanct on the issue and cannot be challenged. Of course, there are a number of fallacies with the concept of precedence. Why should a decision be continued to upheld when it is wrong? Under Lasson's warped logic that means that Brown vs. Board should never have been issued as it stood due to the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. And under the same logic, Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman would have precluded the decision in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut...and that case paved the way for Roe v. Wade . I don't hear Lasson arguing the concept of precedence in those cases because the decisions do not match with his leftist worldviews.

I am thankful only that Lasson's concluding statement lets me know that Lasson himself realizes he is a hack and should not be taken seriously. My concern is that my taxpayer dollars pay for a a professor to be this intellectually dishonest...

To read something educational about the Second Amendment, check out the source list put out by überblogger, UCLA law professor (and good lord willing future Supreme Court Justice) Eugene Volokh.

Well....no kidding

Doesn't really require a PhD to figure out this was going to happen, either (H/T Instapundit):

Following the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, in which seventeen people were killed by a man armed with two 9mm pistols, Britain passed a law outlawing the ownership of most handguns, despite researchers finding "no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession." It's a law so severe that the Britain's Olympic shooting team is forced to train abroad, lest one of its members try to shoot up a grammar school. So how effective has the law been? A doubling in gun-related crimes since the ban, naturally. The London Times on the spate of gun crime in Merseyside:

Golly, you'd almost think kind of effect would be similar to the issues we have in Baltimore and Washington, no?