As NSSF has pointed out, there’s no real scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition. Just about all shooting ranges at this point are recycling their lead (it’s too valuable to just leave in the ground). California’s ban has not been shown to reduce lead levels in Condors, and has driven more people away from hunting. Additionally, it’s interfered with lawful self-protection in parts of California that are considered condor habitat.

Are the gloves coming off? The Obama Administration has, until now, been reluctant to antagonize gun owners. Perhaps now that his popularity is reaching new lows, he’s looking to appeal to an important part of his green base by beating up on gun owners and shooters. Having utterly failed to eliminate the Second Amendment by hook, now it would seem he’s proceeding to do it by crook; by demonizing gun owners and the shooting sports as environmental devils. Let’s hope this is about as successful as the President’s other endeavors.

There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.”

This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as “settled law.”

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

It has become obvious that “settled law” is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee’s confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.

With no judicial record, only Kagan’s political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans’ firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, DC’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton’s scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms – an effort described as “…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan’s record clearly reveals that she does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense.

She should not serve on any court, let alone be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

The NRA is strongly opposed to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations.

The above statement was originally published by NRA-ILA.

You can contact Senator Arlen Specter at 202-224-4254 and Senator Bob Casey at 202-224-6324.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can also read Kopel’s written testimony where he decimates Kagan’s belief that the KKK & NRA should be linked as “bad guy orgs.”

The NRA has always stood up for civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms without regard to race, color, or creed. The historic role of the KKK was to deprive African Americans of this right.

The cofounder of the NRA was General Ambose Everett Burnside, who had recently finished two terms as Governor of Rhode Island. As a Union General, he had been a leader at integrating the freedmen into combat roles. As the Providence Journal later put it, Burnside was ―One of the first of the regular army officers to approve heartily of Mr. Lincoln‘s emancipation policy, he was also one of the first to favor the arming of black troops, and one of the most successful in training them for action.

After founding the NRA, Burnside was elected Senator from Rhode Island. He fought against racial segregation in the military, and proposed that West Point adopt an affirmative action admissions plan for blacks.

The sixth NRA President, General Winfield Scott Hancock, was nationally extolled as “the hero of Gettysburg.” As Democratic nominee for U.S. President in 1880, he had lost the popular vote by less than 10,000 votes, and if he had won the swing state of New York, he would have won the electoral vote. Hancock was remarkable for his time, always treating black people as equals, even before the Civil War. In 1880, Hancock led a national campaign to vindicate a black cadet at West Point who had been attacked by some white cadets, but whom the West Point administration claimed had injured himself.

The NRA‘s Articles of Incorporation omitted something that was common for other sporting organizations at the time: a racial exclusion clause. In contrast to many other organizations and clubs created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—such as the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association, the Professional Golf Association, the New York Athletic Club (for track and field), and the Amateur Athletic Union (same), the NRA welcomed members and athletes of every race.

The NRA was the governing body for the sport of rifle shooting, and eventually became the governing body for almost all the shooting sports. In this way, the NRA set a good example of racial integration and equality for the millions of Americans who participated in the shooting sports. Even during the worst of Jim Crow, a NRA match was one place where blacks and whites were exactly equal, and where skin color did not matter.

In the very segregated Washington, D.C., of the 1930s and 1940s, the shooting range at NRA National Headquarters was the only integrated place where a young black man could go and feel fully welcome. At least that was the experience of Richard Atkinson, a black man who grew up in the District during those years, and who was later was elected a director of the National Rifle Association.

The concerns Kopel raises are some of the reasons the NRA has made its opposition of Kagan crystal clear to members of the Senate. They will score the vote on her confirmation when they calculate grades for the 2010 elections.

Senators Arlen Specter & Bob Casey will likely return to Pennsylvania this next week for the July Fourth holiday recess. Please make sure you contact them to let them know that you stand with NRA & do not want a Supreme Court justice who believes that Americans who believe in gun rights are similar to despicable racists.

Josh Sugarmann, head of the Violence Policy Center, to his credit, at least has the ability to call a spade a spade and show they understand who won. Give the Bradys lemons they’ll make lemonade. Give Josh lemons he’ll just get more sour. VPC’s official statement is very much them, and can basically be summed up as “The gun lobby won, so now everyone is going to die!!!”

Scholar David Hardy:

The majority decisively rejects Stevens’ argument for “incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States.” Scalia’s concurrence stomps all over Stevens’ dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.

Law Professor Jonathan Adler:

Justice Scalia’s concurrence is a strongly worded attack on Justice Stevens’ concurrence over matters of constitutional interpretation. So much for being nice to the guy on his last day at work. Those who love Scalia opinions will love this one. Those who don’t, well . . .

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds:

…it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward? …

…personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud” concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?

About the Scalia concurring opinion, blogger Sebastian:

My basic conclusion is that Scalia clearly did not believe the majority opinion savaged Justice Stevens enough, and he wanted to make sure his opinion is thoroughly skewered.

Before people get too excited, a lot of gun laws are going to be upheld even by strict scrutiny. Heller has already acknowledged that that government has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, so there will be laws that will be permissible with that in mind. But strict scrutiny is a high standard, and there is much law that will fail to stand up to it. Will that be what the lower courts use? We shall see. But they can no longer hide from the fact that the Second Amendment, through the 14th Amendment, protects a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans.

In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position.

US Senate
Bob Casey

• Facebook

Arlen Specter

• Twitter – @SenArlenSpecter
• Facebook

US Congress
Jason Altmire

• Facebook

Christopher Carney

• Twitter – @ChrisCarneyPa10
• Facebook

Charlie Dent

• Twitter – @DentforCongress
• Facebook

Jim Gerlach

• Twitter – @JimGerlach
• Facebook

Tim Holden

• Twitter – @TimHoldenPA17
• Facebook

Paul Kanjorski

• Twitter – @kanjo4congress
• Facebook

Patrick Murphy

• Facebook

Tim Murphy

• Twitter – @RepTimMurphy
• Facebook

Joe Pitts

• Twitter – @JoePitts4PA
• Facebook

Todd Platts

• Facebook

Bill Shuster

• Twitter – @RepBillShuster
• Facebook

Glenn Thompson

• Twitter – @CongressmanGT
• Facebook

State Officials
Tom Corbett

• Twitter – @CorbettforGov
• Facebook

Joe Scarnati

Karen Boback

• Facebook

Michele Brooks

Bryan Cutler

• Twitter – @RepBryanCutler
• Facebook

Bill DeWeese

Glen Grell

• Facebook

Rob Kauffman

• Facebook

Mark Keller

• Facebook

John Maher

Daryl Metcalfe

• Twitter – @DarylMetcalfe

Merle Phillips

Kathy Rapp

RoseMarie Swanger

• Facebook

Will Tallman

• Facebook

Katie True

I figured that a title about campaign finance reform wouldn’t grab too many eyeballs. But telling people about the intended result of this “reform” probably would. I’ve been thinking about this post for a while now, but decided that Dave Kopel’s release of his June First Freedom article on the subject made the issue more relevant for the blog.

There is one key to the Schumer-backed DISCLOSE Act that makes it dangerous for gun owners who want to organize in any meaningful manner: disclosure of all donors/members whose money may have funded independent expenditures to the FEC.

According to The New York Times, a “reform” bill might require advocacy groups (such as NRA) “to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account.”

Simply put: If NRA wants to use its general funds from member dues to speak out during election season, then NRA would have to give the federal government a list of every single NRA member.

The FEC donor databases are open to all, and the most user-friendly that makes looking up individuals easy and fast is the database available at OpenSecrets.org. Kopel uses the example that your boss could decide to cross-reference you to find out what you’re up to outside of work hours. At that point, you just have to hope he/she isn’t anti-gun, or you may find yourself in the unemployment line. Even if NRA maintains a separate fund for campaign expenditures, you can’t donate if you value your privacy.

We’re by far not the only issue concerned about these crazy disclosure agreements. The National Right to Life Committee is opposing the bill on the same grounds:

One of those regulations involves NRLC and other pro-life groups having to identify donors publicly anytime it runs communications in certain times that ask people to contact Congress about legislation related to pro-life concerns.

“Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their beliefs,” NRLC concluded.

It’s pretty dangerous in some areas of the country to be socially conservative. See the harassment that same-sex marriage opponents faced in California as an exhibit of what pro-lifers – and possibly gun owners – could face.

Even the parts of the bill that aren’t dangerous for gun owners actively try to cut us off at the knees when it comes to political advertising. I’m not opposed to the spirit of an organization head doing a disclaimer as part of a commercial, but as specific as the DISCLOSURE Act is, it limits our options in order to cut our political effectiveness.

NRA advertisements always let you know that they’re paid for by NRA. Sometimes, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre appears as a spokesman in a commercial, while in others, it’s Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund and executive director of NRA-ILA. Sometimes, NRA may choose to use someone else entirely. For example, Charlton Heston appeared in many NRA commercials during his long service to the Second Amendment.

The proposal would mean that in 1997, for example, when Heston— one of the most respected men in America—was an NRA officer but not president or CEO, an NRA commercial would have been required to cut the amount of time that Heston had to speak about the issues.

Anything that reduces the time we can put Chris Cox’s face & voice in front of female viewers is a loss for our issue as far as I’m concerned!

In all seriousness, we have a diverse set of powerful leaders we can choose from at this point, and most Americans would probably agree that using any of them would meet the spirit of any disclosure laws. If Tom Selleck wants to get on screen as an NRA board member and talk about NRA-endorsed candidates or the issues at stake in a particular election, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s plenty transparent.

Politically, Congress still knows we can raise some hell on this issue. The House sponsor sat down with NRA recently to try and figure out their concerns, and they are specifically worried about last minute lobbying blitzes. It would seem that the pro-life groups and the Chamber of Commerce are planning to score the vote – and I suspect that the final product will determine whether or not NRA scores the vote. (If they do, Democrats may lose the votes they claim to have to pass it in the House.)

The Chamber has particular concerns about how this bill favors unions above other corporations:

For example, companies with government contracts worth $50,000 or more and those with foreign ownership would be banned from funding political ads and engaging in other campaign-related activity. The business group believes unions that receive federal grants, have collective bargaining agreements with the government or have international affiliates should be subject to similar limits.

Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and counsel to the Chamber, said the Disclose Act does not balance restrictions on corporations and unions equally, as previous campaign finance reform bills have.

“This bill is a departure from that tradition,” he said.

This is one of the reasons the NRLC argued the bill name should really stand for “Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites.”

Right now, the bill has been postponed in the House. The committee vote was down party lines, and all efforts to make this bill more fair have been turned down based on party affiliation.

The intentional partisanship and one-sided nature of this was demonstrated by the defeat of a series of amendments in the committee mark-up that were proposed by Republicans. This included an amendment by Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) that would have extended the prohibition on government contractors to any unions that have representational contracts with the government, as well as an amendment by Rep. Gregg Harper (R., Miss.) that would have extended the same ban to any other recipient of government grants, such as the liberal groups that receive so many federal earmarks and other funds. When Lungren tried to extend the political activity ban on corporations with foreign shareholders or corporate directors to unions that receive dues from foreign nationals, that was also rejected.

This bill has got to go down in defeat. NRA is a one-issue organization, but they also look out for our ability to talk about that issue with the public during election season. Because many people who aren’t paid members receiving the magazine pay attention to NRA’s messaging, any effort to silence their efforts will only hurt gun rights on Election Day.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Topics include banning private sales, banning rifles, and registries. In fact, Joe Sestak won’t even concede that firearms may be used for self-defense lawfully.

It is also true that Arlen Specter does not have the support of the NRA. NRA has endorsed Republican Pat Toomey in the race. Since his party switch, Specter has voted against us on every issue.

While some Washington, DC leaders were willing to concede to the amendment that would bring the District’s gun laws in line with other states and end their abuse of gun owners, the Democratic leadership has decided they will not accept any pro-gun language in the bill.

The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing reports that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has announced that a D.C. voting rights bill will not come up this session, in part because of opposition to an amendment that would have eliminated most of the District’s gun-control laws.

“At this point in time I do not see the ability to move it in this session of Congress,” said Hoyer (D-Md.), who added that he was “extraordinarily disappointed.” …

But while Hoyer alluded to the Utah dispute, he made clear that the gun control language was the biggest stumbling block.

“The price was too high,” Hoyer said.

Several DC council members wanted to accept the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, not because they support our rights, but because they realize that their continued abuse of gun owners will be brought down in the future through the courts or Congress.

From Roll Call:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D), is expected today to unveil a lobbying blitz to prod Congress to approve legislation that would require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.

The group will launch a six-figure media campaign that includes both national cable and selected state advertising spots as well as an online petition drive.

“The truth is the conventional wisdom is just wrong that you can’t do a gun issue,” said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s chief adviser for policy and strategic planning.

Six figures isn’t a huge sum for a national campaign, but it is a threat. The ads are targeted against senators in Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado. It shows that Bloomberg is willing to dump serious money into the issue in order to move the ball forward. NRA is very very good at playing the lobby and electioneering game. They are much less adept at media campaigns to shape public opinion. That’s always been the other side’s core strength against us.

In Pennsylvania, his allies are looking to take his campaign to a bigger stage. Bethlehem’s John Callahan is running for Congress on his record of trying to bring New York-style gun control to Pennsylvania. Here at home, he has worked closely with the Brady Campaign to try and end preemption across the Commonwealth. In the Northeast corner of the state, Bloomberg & Brady buddy Tom Leighton of Wilkes-Barre has joined their efforts that will shut down gun shows around the state and is trying to take that support to the state Senate.

In addition, there was a story last week about MAIG looking to hire an Ohio coalition coordinator with a $75,000 grant, much like Max Nacheman here in Pennsylvania. This is not good news for Ohio activists.

Robert Stevens was an unsympathetic plaintiff in a case that had the potential to hurt all hunters and outdoor media news sources. He was convicted of selling videos of illegal dog fights in Virginia. He happens to be the first person charged under a 1999 law that banned the depiction of animal cruelty. Unfortunately for lawful hunters, the definition of animal cruelty was extremely broad in the statute. In the amicus brief filed by NRA, the threats are outlined as such:

Although apparently intended to address only depictions of depraved animal cruelty such as crush videos, Section 48 also criminalizes hunting-related media that indisputably is entitled to First Amendment protection. For example, all of the following fall within Section 48(a)’s criminal prohibition: selling a video depicting a deer hunt to a citizen of the District of Columbia, showing a television program depicting a dove hunt to a citizen of Iowa, or selling a magazine with a photograph of a mountain lion hunt to a citizen of California. Yet organizations like the NRA, retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon.com, and media companies like ESPN create and sell these types of media into these states every day, and therefore potentially run afoul of Section 48.

Section 48(b)’s exception for works of “serious” educational, journalistic, or artistic value does not eliminate the threat to hunting media from Section 48(a)’s overbroad prohibition. While enjoyable to millions of Americans, an average hunting video or television show might not be found by a jury to have “serious” educational, journalistic, or artistic value or—as the district court here interpreted the standard—to be of “great import.”

Section 48 thus is not narrowly tailored to achieve—and does not use the least restrictive means to achieve—the Government’s stated objectives of eliminating animal cruelty and the societal implications flowing from animal cruelty. Moreover, Section 48 criminalizes substantially more protected speech, including hunting media, than all of the speech that the Government claims is unprotected. Section 48 is therefore substantially overbroad on its face.

Never has a statute that reaches this far beyond the Government’s stated interests—and that reaches so much protected speech—been upheld under the First Amendment.

Heard on October 6, Court watchers observed that the government’s case did not seem to persuade the justices that the federal law against depictions of animal cruelty were indeed narrow enough to exclude activities such as hunting. Though the government said the Court should just “trust them” to not prosecute hunters, Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether relying on such discretion would likely chill the speech of citizens. With an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, it is clear the argument was not at all convincing. (These quotes are from the syllabus, as the full opinion is much longer. I will update with a new post focusing on the dissent and other arguments from the lead opinion tomorrow.)

(4) Despite the Government’s assurance that it will apply §48 to reach only “extreme” cruelty, this Court will not uphold an unconsti-tutional statute merely because the Government promises to use itresponsibly. Nor can the Court construe this statutory language to avoid constitutional doubt. A limiting construction can be imposedonly if the statute “is ‘readily susceptible’ to such a construction,” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 884. To read §48 as the Government desires requires rewriting, not just reinterpretation.

(5) This construction of §48 decides the constitutional question. The Government makes no effort to defend §48 as applied beyondcrush videos and depictions of animal fighting. It argues that those particular depictions are intrinsically related to criminal conduct orare analogous to obscenity (if not themselves obscene), and that the ban on such speech would satisfy the proper level of scrutiny. But the Government nowhere extends these arguments to other depic-tions, such as hunting magazines and videos, that are presumptivelyprotected by the First Amendment but that remain subject to §48.Nor does the Government seriously contest that these presumptivelyimpermissible applications of §48 far outnumber any permissible ones. The Court therefore does not decide whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional. Section 48 is not so limited but is instead substan-tially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.

It is also clear that the Court took the arguments of NRA and many other pro-hunting organizations (including Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Professional Outdoor Media Association, Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, and National Shooting Sports Foundation) seriously as well.

Depictions of entirely lawful conduct may run afoul of the ban if those depictions later find their way into States where the same conduct is unlawful. This greatly expands §48’s scope, because views about animal cruelty and regulations having no connection to cruelty vary widely from place to place. Hunting is unlawful in the District of Columbia, for example, but there is an enormous nationalmarket for hunting-related depictions, greatly exceeding the demandfor crush videos or animal fighting depictions. Because the statute allows each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country, §48(a) applies to any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting thatis sold in the Nation’s Capital. Those seeking to comply with the lawface a bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate ju-risdictions.

Shortly after it was heard, some pundits predicted that Justice Samuel Alito may not want to throw out the overly broad law based on his questions posed during arguments. It turns out they were spot on, as he was the only dissenting Justice.

The Supreme Court heard a relatively narrow question about whether the District’s gun ban & trigger lock requirements violated the individual right to self-defense in the Heller case. They agreed those two provisions did clearly violate the Second Amendment. But local officials in DC decided to violate the spirit of the ruling by going back to the drawing board with its gun laws to make them as restrictive as they thought possible. The city’s new rules cost nearly $900 and take about 16 hours to register a single gun for possession in the home. (There is no right to carry in the District.) The rules require at least four trips to the police station, a five-hour course, an exam, and multiple background checks. For a resident looking to defend themselves in the city with one of the highest crime rates in the nation, they better have deep wallets and lots of time on their hands.

When members of Congress saw how the city was abusing its authority, they decided to act on relevant legislation that was moving rather than waiting on another court battle. (The Heller case was initially filed in February 2003 and did not see conclusion until June 2008.) Senator John Ensign (R-NV) rounded up 22 of his fellow pro-gun colleagues in the Senate to introduce an amendment to a DC voting rights bill that was ready to pass. The Second Amendment Enforcement Act would remove the burdens placed on gun owners by the local bureaucrats and merely impose current federal laws that applies to the rest of the country. In other words, DC politicos could no longer profit on the backs of gun owners to the tune of nearly a thousand dollars, nor could they impose default waiting periods full of redundant paperwork and multiple trips to the licensing office.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act passed the Senate with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 62-36 on February 26, 2009.

However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was outraged by the vote and put a stop to the bill in the House when it was discovered that pro-gun Democrats would support the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. The bill has since languished for more than a year since arriving in the House.

With the rising tide against incumbents threatening to end the House majority and significantly weaken the Senate majority, DC officials have decided to throw in the towel and agree to honor the Second Amendment by allowing a vote on the bill. Though given the steadfast opposition to any pro-Second Amendment language by the House leadership, it is important for gun owners to keep an eye on the bill.

In fact, if the Washington Post’s Sunday editorial is any indication of how the leadership may feel about the issue, gun owners can expect shenanigans in the lead up to any vote.

House Democratic leaders plan to bring to the floor as early as Wednesday a bill to give the District a voting member in the House. Similar legislation passed a year ago in the Senate, but an odious amendment was attached that gutted D.C. gun control laws, stalling the momentum for voting rights. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s non-voting House member, said that she reluctantly concluded over these many months that there was no way to scrub the gun language from the bill. Political realities — the gun lobby’s clout, Democrats’ pessimism about the fall election, declining incentive for an arrangement that gives a companion seat to Utah — are cited to buttress the argument that this is the best, perhaps last, chance for voting rights.

We have the utmost respect for Ms. Norton; she has worked valiantly over the years to protect the city’s gun laws from assaults from the National Rifle Association, so we know how difficult this decision was for her.
…
In a final insult, [the bill] would prohibit local officials from passing any law that could “discourage” gun possession.

The Washington Post considers it an “insult” that government officials should not be allowed to use their authority to work against the Constitution. There is little doubt that some of their friends in Congress feel the same way about situation and will work to change it this week.

Finally, for those who raise the argument that the underlying bill – the DC Voting Rights Act – is unconstitutional, that issue is coming into play during these debates. The Washington Post notes that because the issue of DC residents who do not actually reside in a state will now have representation in the House, there will likely be lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill. With the language of the bill and amendment, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act could still survive a court challenge even if the DC Voting Rights section is thrown out. All-in-all, gun owners need to make sure they pay attention to the debate so DC residents can have their gun rights respected – rather than trampled – by local bureaucrats.

In order from worst to not-all-bad:

• Strongly-ideological, highly-committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.
• Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.
• Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.
• Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.
• Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].

He lists Elena Kagan as an unknown on the issue.

Reviewing the financial reports of The Brady Campaign and The Brady Center (the legislative & foundation divisions of the national anti-gun organization, respectively), it would appear that fewer donors are willing to step up to advance their agenda to re-write the Second Amendment as we know it.

From 2004-2008 (the latest year for which data is available), the Brady Campaign has seen donations drop more than 53%. Considering the numbers started falling a full two years before the official start of the recession, it is unlikely that their lack of fundraising success has been due to the financial strains on donors.

In fact, because they’ve had to dip into savings and claim investment losses, the Brady Campaign actually ended 2008 in the red by more than $450,000.

The numbers don’t appear much better for their tax-exempt wing, The Brady Center. A first glance at the numbers above, my experience as a non-profit staffer told me that the organization may have been re-aligning costs and donations to their other division. (The legal division between outright lobbying and merely educating lawmakers is enough to make it worthwhile to shift costs to the Center.) But upon review of the Center’s financial reports, it would seem that not even the deductibility of donations is enough to entice donors to open their wallets.

Though the organization has been much better about keeping a comfortable nest egg for their Center, even that has been in decline due to recent litigation expenses in Heller and McDonald. In total assets, the Center is down more than 10% to less than $2 million in a cushion for tight times.

So while it may seem too good to be true for gun owners, this is no April Fool’s joke. The numbers are real. However, that doesn’t mean we get to sit tight. With a multi-billionaire like Michael Bloomberg funding his own anti-gun organization that has Pennsylvania in its crosshairs, we’re still at risk. In fact, Bloomberg’s model of attacking us city by city with a lobbyist he shares with the Brady Campaign has been more successful than traditional gun control activism. In that regard, Pennsylvania is in a more precarious situation than before the Brady Campaign’s donations started drying up.

Philadelphia spent resources signing onto a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should not force states and local governments to honor the Constitution, requesting that any rights to self-defense and arms be “minimized.” Philadelphia’s two prominent Congressmen, Reps. Bob Brady and Chakah Fattah, are siding with the city and Chicago in support of the handgun ban.

On the side of the Constitution, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Tom Corbett and 15 state lawmakers have argued that the Second Amendment is an important individual right and should be respected by state and local governments.

Two of us will attend the hearing, though we do not expect to be seated for the actual case. You can find full coverage of this history-making event on our Twitter feed, @PAGunRights. You can also get regular updates through NRA News.

“This summer, the Court will decide whether Chicago’s guns laws are constitutional. The case could affect or open the door to countless — and needless — legal challenges to local and state gun laws across the country. Today, we stand here on behalf of the people of Chicago and the United States who have been victims of gun violence, on behalf of their families and loved ones and on behalf of all those who believe Chicago’s current gun law is constitutional,” Daley said.

Daley added later, “America rose up about smoking…why can’t we have America rise up against gun violence?”

The Chicago Sun-Times also reports that Mayor Nutter adamantly stated that “[t]he NRA is out of control.” One can presume that he also means to argue the 4 million members, more than half a million of which are in Pennsylvania, are “out of control” for merely asking him to recognize their basic human right to defend one’s life and family.

The press conference served to promote the brief previously filed by the mayors asking the Supreme Court to “minimize” the right to self-defense.

Incorporation would result in an unwarranted intrusion by the Federal Government into a field that falls exclusively within the States’ police powers. The States have a paramount interest in protecting their citizens and property from loss of life, injury and damage occasioned by violence and breach of peace. Even if each individual enjoys the right to bear at least some sort of arms for self-defense, the exercise of that right carries with it the risk of violence and breach of peace, which the States naturally would want to minimize for the good of the community as a whole. (emphasis added)

Is anyone surprised by a city that won’t follow state laws or pay attention to the state constitution wants a pass on individual rights, too? And for you uppity people who want the right to defend yourselves, well, they just need to make sure your rights are simply minimized.

Congressmen Bob Brady (D, PA-01) and Chakah Fattah (D, PA-02) joined a brief filed in favor of upholding a ban on handguns. In it, the Congressmen made the bizarre arguments that federal restrictions on fully automatic firearms dating from the 1930s clearly show that the Chicago handgun ban is constitutional. To further their “evidence,” they cite previous federal laws that merely acknowledge the existence of state firearms laws – such as those banning the use of firearms by violent felons – as reason to consider an outright ban to be legal. They seem to forget the Court made clear in Heller that bans are not merely legally debatable restrictions.

The following Pennsylvania Representatives also refused to stand up for Second Amendment rights, but they also avoided signing on to an outright attack on them:

• Kathleen Dahlkemper (D, PA-03)
• Joe Sestak (D, PA-07)
• Allyson Schwartz (D, PA-13)
• Mike Doyle (D, PA-14)