The Dog has been a proponent of gun control for most of his life. It is not that this was a family position that he sucked up with his mother’s milk, no that would have been a hell of a lot easier. No the Dog’s father, a dyed in the wool liberal, was a big advocate for gun ownership, just as his mother, was staunchly against. But as the Dog grew up he learned to shoot and hunt, learned the high level of damage that mishandled weapons caused and made up his own mind on the issue. Then 9/11, the "War on Terror" and real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq came along. The Dog is nothing if not a pragmatic political policy guy; it was very clear that talking any kind of gun regulation in those circumstances was a total loser politically.

Things have changed now. The recent decision by the Supreme Court affirming that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is one devolves to the individual citizen give us an opportunity to make changes in our gun laws that not only heal the breach in the Democratic party on this issue, but will remake the gun ownership issue one that is a winner for Dems. How do we achieve this miraculous feat, follow the Dog below the fold and he will tell you.

The Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished decision in the case U.S. v Gilbert on July 15 holding that the recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case does not give people the right to own automatic weapons and sawed off rifles. The court stated

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _ (2008), holding that the Second Amendment protects a limited individual right to possess a firearm–unconnected with service in a militia–does not alter our conclusion.  Under Heller, individuals still do not have the right to possess machineguns or short-barreled rifles, as Gilbert did, and convicted felons, such as Gilbert, do not have the right to possess any firearms.  Id., Slip. Op. at 27.

Since the Supreme Court decided the Heller case there has been much speculation regarding the scope of the ruling. Would this open the flood gates to unrestricted ownership of handguns and permit the ownership other types of weapons, like assault rifles. The Ninth Circuit opinion says that it does not.

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear.  Enemies are everywhere.  Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes.  They talk to us on our telephones.  Some sashay in through our computers.  "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States.  Our open society places the public at risk.  We, the people, must defend ourselves.  Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means.  The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms.  Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for.  In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation.  In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to arms."

I am not surprised when FOX lumps anyone with whom they disagree into the dubious category, far left. We know they are simply a right-wing bull horn. However I a more surprised when the NYT tosses labels around without any connection to reality. While I do not think that the NYT is perfect by any means, I assume they will at least do their research. A mistaken assumption perhaps?

Today the NYT ran a story entitled Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul. It discusses recent frustration with Obama's move toward the so-called center, and suggests that this disillusion is occuring over on the far left. The article resorts to typical straw men and reductive categories rather than discussing the complex and nuanced positions of the American Voter.

Its claims that only the far left opposes the Iraq war, and only the far left opposes telecom immunity, and that only the far left supports gun control the are dubious at best, and at worst are outright contradicted by polls in the reality-based community.

More on the flipside.

So many progressives, including friends of mine, have been so quick to jump off the Obama train, it's breathtaking.  But they're missing the point.

The Errington Thompson Show is a progressive political talk show that airs on 880 AM (streaming) from the beautiful mountains of Asheville, NC on Saturday's at 9 am EST.  Today, we are talking with Linda Monk, constitutional scholar, about several recent Supreme Court rulings - guns, Exxon, Gitmo and more.  It should be fun.  You should join us!

Our Declaration of Independence is the true source for the intentions of the Founding Fathers at the birth of our Nation on July 4, 1776.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We have UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, endowed by our Creator.

The excessive presence of lethal weapons in American society, dispersed with no common sense public safety policy and lax or nonexistent controls, is a constant threat to our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I sure can't.

I have been a life member of the NRA for about 45 years, but I can't seem to explain that YES, Obama has voted for firearms control every chance he got, and NO, Barack Obama probably never touched a firearm in his life, and never went target shooting, and wasn't in the military, and doesn't like guns because he has no experience with them.

I'm stunned beyond words right now.  Georgia had passed a new law to allow people to carry concealed weapons into restaurants, state parks and on public transportation.  The bill was sponsored by Rep. Tim Bearden, a republican of course.  

The City of Atlanta declared Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport a gun-free zone.  Naturally, Rep. Bearden and his merry band of gun toting republicans have decided to fight this restriction in court arguing that the airport qualifies as public transportation and there public restraurants within the airport.  The only bit of sanity displayed is that they agree no guns should be allowed in restraurants beyond the security check point.   This has been reported in the Huffingpost.   Lawsuit filed to carry guns at Atlanta Airport

Wait until you read what Rep Bearden plans to do beside just a law suit!  Read more below!

Fake news from  www.richieville.com

Crips, Bloods Hail Supreme Court Gun Ruling
Latin Kings Still Studying Decision

Richieville News Service - COMPTON, CALIFORNIA
Two notorious street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, held a rare joint press conference here to praise yesterday's Supreme Court ruling striking down the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership.

As the District of Columbia busies itself throwing sand in the gears of the latest Supreme Court ruling, I can't help but be reminded of the Jim Crow laws in the deep south.
I see gun control as fundamentally racist and I'm gonna tell ya why below the fold.

McCain and the GOP are trying to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on gun control after his statements on the Heller decision last week. In fact, he's been quite consistent on his position, which is that communities have different needs with regard to gun control and therefore they should have the right to regulate as they need to locally, a position not strictly at odds with the decision.

Obama's statement on Heller, which struck down the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional, was pragmatic and mostly OK as far as it goes:

As June ends, it is clear in a number of ways that Barack Obama represents the center of the Democratic Party.  This is true in ways we may desire (the fundraising model of the campaign is now that of the DNC) and in ways we may not desire (the candidate's recent policy statements on FISA and gun control appear to run counter to earlier statements that won him support from many people).

Taken as a whole, though, I argue that we can take comfort in the fact that Obama now represents the center of the party, and that this move has the potential of making the party -- and its leader -- more progressive.  I'll explain why after the jump.

Frankly, I didn't think I had to ask this question in a progressive blog, but since the Supreme Court Decision affirming the second amentment as an individual right instead of a collective right, there have been many contrarian diaries and comments that seemed to favor the conservative justices on this ruling.  I was taken aback a bit by this, but then again I didn't think I'd ever see Bill Clinton attacked here either, but I digress.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court stuck down a ban on handguns in Washington DC.
The basis for the 5-4 decision -- in which Kennedy sided with the conservative four Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito -- was that the Second Amendment, as intended by the Founders, secures an individual's right to owning arms.

Fine.  Nonetheless, below I propose a formulation which will satisfy protecting an individual's right to bear arms; while at the same time permitting handguns to be banned in a Constitutionally protected way in the Washington DC area.

Morning sessions with my RSS newsreader have become a new form of daily self-flagellation for me, as each story I read paints a more grim picture of the state of our nation than the last.  The information takes hold of my soul and seeks to steer me down into a dark and bottomless abyss of despair, but I refuse to give up.  I refuse to allow the people responsible for almost all of the stories to just walk away without, at the very least, throwing my voice into the cacophony of other voices flowing from millions of horrified and outraged Americans... voices that cry out for truth and justice.  Even as I write I know that all of my passion and intensity will probably not get George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached and convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Just as many members of the Nazi party walked away without ever facing trial for their actions, the legion of arrogant and deceitful politicos appointed by the President will almost certainly escape justice.  The situation can be just slightly frustrating.  The angry things I sometimes write serve as a reminder to me that irrational anger destroys credibility, and anger without direction serves no purpose at all.  Keeping that in mind, I have a lot of valid points I'd like to make.

Please please please please please please please.  This diary is not intended as a forum for discussing what the Supreme Court, or society in general, should do on any particular question of gun control.  My interest is solely in what the Court did do in its decision today -- because it's highly counterintuitive and I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere.

Justice Scalia today authored the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which a 5-4 majority of the Court confirmed the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) as an individual right.

As many of us argued before the decision, whether the RKBA was individual or collective was not the most important issue at hand.  The significant question was, if it is an individual right, how and when and to what extent it could be restricted.

Today, among other things, Scalia wrote that the DC law requiring trigger locks was unconstitutional.  What you may not have heard is that this was based on a relative technicality -- a fixable technicality, after which trigger locks would seem to be OK.

I thought I would give my perspective on the SCOTUS ruling today on my city's handgun ban, particularly as a resident of DC's Ward 7, one of the most heavily racked by gun violence areas in the city. I also write this from the perspective of having been the victim of crime, once an attempted street robbery by a high school kid trying to impress his friends, only to be embarrassed when I didn't just hand over my wallet, and more recently our home was broken into and robbed. So with this brief background, here's why I think that the SCOTUS decision is not necessarily the wrong decision in that gun ownership should be allowed, but it was based on totally flawed thinking.