SGC USA has PMC Bronze .380 for $13.99.
If you've been looking for .380 that's not ridiculously expensive you might want to buy some before it's gone. I don't own anything in that caliber, but I do know it's been difficult to find for some time now.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Quote of the Day - Insanity
"The Democratic Party believes that you can take an imperfect health-care system and fix it by putting it under the most dysfunctional and broken entity in the United States today: It's called the Federal Government.
That proposition is insane."
Representative Thaddeus McCotter - (R) - Michigan
Thank god some of our elected officials get it and are willing to call out the Democrats for what they are. Insane.
H/T to Kevin - Please go read his post and Rep. McCotter's remarks in full.
I have two words for what McCotter had to say
DAMN STRAIGHT!
That proposition is insane."
Representative Thaddeus McCotter - (R) - Michigan
Thank god some of our elected officials get it and are willing to call out the Democrats for what they are. Insane.
H/T to Kevin - Please go read his post and Rep. McCotter's remarks in full.
I have two words for what McCotter had to say
DAMN STRAIGHT!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Dear Mike Vanderboegh
Would you and your buddies shut your pieholes?
You Are Not Helping. You're acting like a bunch of petulant children. Besides, violent protest combined with vandalism and destruction of property is something I've come to expect from the left. Why stoop to that level? It's stupid and counterproductive.
If you had a disagreement with a neighbor and wanted to get the rest of the neighborhood on your side would throwing bricks through the neighbors windows be the way to accomplish that? I think not.
Here's a bit of what I said the last time I discussed Vanderboegh on this blog,
"If all we accomplish is to scare people then what we'll have done is alienated people and marginalized ourselves. It's hard to have a broad, positive impact once you've done that. It's hard to keep those founding principles and values alive if you've been marginalized."
I'm pretty sure that engaging in threats of violence and vandalism / destruction of property will accomplish exactly that which I've quoted above. Well that and the fact that engaging in such behavior makes you a huge fucking asshole.
Committing crimes and generally being an asshole isn't the kind of behavior that brings about positive change through effective, grassroots activism. We've still got the ballot box to worry about, so put down your rifle, ammo box, & bricks and try acting like a rational, civil adult.
You Are Not Helping. You're acting like a bunch of petulant children. Besides, violent protest combined with vandalism and destruction of property is something I've come to expect from the left. Why stoop to that level? It's stupid and counterproductive.
If you had a disagreement with a neighbor and wanted to get the rest of the neighborhood on your side would throwing bricks through the neighbors windows be the way to accomplish that? I think not.
Here's a bit of what I said the last time I discussed Vanderboegh on this blog,
"If all we accomplish is to scare people then what we'll have done is alienated people and marginalized ourselves. It's hard to have a broad, positive impact once you've done that. It's hard to keep those founding principles and values alive if you've been marginalized."
I'm pretty sure that engaging in threats of violence and vandalism / destruction of property will accomplish exactly that which I've quoted above. Well that and the fact that engaging in such behavior makes you a huge fucking asshole.
Committing crimes and generally being an asshole isn't the kind of behavior that brings about positive change through effective, grassroots activism. We've still got the ballot box to worry about, so put down your rifle, ammo box, & bricks and try acting like a rational, civil adult.
Gays & Guns
What does the gay cooties crowd have in common with gun control advocates? Ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky predictions of all the evil and moral depravity that will occur if we dare let "those people" have their relationships legally recognized.
Left, Right or middle it's all the same. If we let those people enjoy individual liberty the United States as we know it will collapse!
Left, Right or middle it's all the same. If we let those people enjoy individual liberty the United States as we know it will collapse!
They Are Who We Thought They Were
I've been saying for quite a while now that President Obama is a narcissistic, arrogant man and a proponent of Socialism.
The Reverend Al Sharpton agrees, saying,
"Well, first of all, then we'd have to say that the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."
Obama is who we thought he was before the election.
As for Obamacare, Representative John Dingell breaks from the narrative and lets slip what most intelligent Americans already know. Obamacare is not about healthcare, it's about the one true Holy Grail for all Leftists. Control of the citizenry.
"Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
- Representative John Dingell (D) - MI
Dingell just handed his future opponent an absolute gem to use against him in November!
This is what they think of us. To them we're just slaves who must be controlled by omnipotent masters whether we like it or not.
The Reverend Al Sharpton agrees, saying,
"Well, first of all, then we'd have to say that the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."
Obama is who we thought he was before the election.
As for Obamacare, Representative John Dingell breaks from the narrative and lets slip what most intelligent Americans already know. Obamacare is not about healthcare, it's about the one true Holy Grail for all Leftists. Control of the citizenry.
"Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
- Representative John Dingell (D) - MI
Dingell just handed his future opponent an absolute gem to use against him in November!
This is what they think of us. To them we're just slaves who must be controlled by omnipotent masters whether we like it or not.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Typical Media Bias
All you need to read is the 1st line of this Tennessean piece
Once again in 2010, forces are working hard to mix alcohol with firearms in a restaurant or bar near you.
Oh No! The pants-shitting hysteria is in full force! Never mind that the bill simply allows citizens to carry in places that serve alcohol, the same as they do everyday in places that do not. Never mind that the vast majority of states in America allow citizens to carry in establishments that serve alcohol.
The Tennesean has an agenda to push. That agenda can be summed up as "Guns are bad mmkay!"
Here in Delaware not only can we carry in places that serve alcohol, we can drink while carrying. Despite this there has not been a rash of drunken shootouts by OC'ers or CCDW holders. The rest of the country affords its citizens this same freedom without it being an issue. Are Tennessee residents somehow more dangerous and irresponsible than the rest of us? I highly doubt it.
Once again in 2010, forces are working hard to mix alcohol with firearms in a restaurant or bar near you.
Oh No! The pants-shitting hysteria is in full force! Never mind that the bill simply allows citizens to carry in places that serve alcohol, the same as they do everyday in places that do not. Never mind that the vast majority of states in America allow citizens to carry in establishments that serve alcohol.
The Tennesean has an agenda to push. That agenda can be summed up as "Guns are bad mmkay!"
Here in Delaware not only can we carry in places that serve alcohol, we can drink while carrying. Despite this there has not been a rash of drunken shootouts by OC'ers or CCDW holders. The rest of the country affords its citizens this same freedom without it being an issue. Are Tennessee residents somehow more dangerous and irresponsible than the rest of us? I highly doubt it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
In Light of Yesterday, Quote of the Day - Recycled Edition
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."
- Ayn Rand
Originally posted as the QOTD on 3-1-2008.
Brigid channels Rand, but says it better than Rand could.
Obamacare will do all the things Liberals are promising at about the same time a leprechaun brings me a pot 'o gold or the NRA delivers my wheelbarrows full of cash.
- Ayn Rand
Originally posted as the QOTD on 3-1-2008.
Brigid channels Rand, but says it better than Rand could.
Obamacare will do all the things Liberals are promising at about the same time a leprechaun brings me a pot 'o gold or the NRA delivers my wheelbarrows full of cash.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Slaughter Rule
Democrats are currently trying to pass Obamacare by using a procedural rule, known as reconciliation, that would allow them to vote on the bill in the Senate and then "deem" it passed in the House. Liberals are attempting this run-around because they know healthcare won't pass a vote in both houses, and it allows the Senate to pass it with a simple 51 vote majority.
Liberals are of course screaming "They did it too" citing times where the Republican majority voted on something in the Senate. The difference is obvious of course. It has been used many times (by both parties) but is generally used as a procedural item to make things more efficient in the day-to-day practices of Congress. It has often been used for budgetary items where both houses agree on said items. This was done so that minor budgetary changes could be inserted into resolutions without the voting process being repeated each time. It has not been used for actual, highly contentious legislation.
Using it in this manner would be like the Republicans using it to pass the Patriot Act or the Iraq War Resolution. Could you imagine the uproar had they done so?
I wish I could say that Congressional Democrats and President Obama enough of a sense of self-preservation that they would avoid trying to ram healthcare through like this. I can't say that. In fact, I think they really are stupid enough to try it.
As for this practice being Constitutional, I don't see how it could be.
Article 1 Section 7 states,
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively
Keeping Article 1 Section 7 in mind, here's what the Democrats plan to do, as explained in this CNN article,
"The emerging consensus plan is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama. A package of changes that mirror the president's plan would then be passed through both chambers under reconciliation rules.
What the Democrats are doing is trying to avoid an up or down vote on a finalized bill. They want to pass an unfinished bill, send it to Obama, then use reconciliation to pass the bill with "amendments". "Amendments" meaning all of the crap they want in the legislation but can't actually get passed. It seems obvious that under this strategy the legislation will not be voted on by both parties, as required by Article 1 Section 7.
Liberals are of course screaming "They did it too" citing times where the Republican majority voted on something in the Senate. The difference is obvious of course. It has been used many times (by both parties) but is generally used as a procedural item to make things more efficient in the day-to-day practices of Congress. It has often been used for budgetary items where both houses agree on said items. This was done so that minor budgetary changes could be inserted into resolutions without the voting process being repeated each time. It has not been used for actual, highly contentious legislation.
Using it in this manner would be like the Republicans using it to pass the Patriot Act or the Iraq War Resolution. Could you imagine the uproar had they done so?
I wish I could say that Congressional Democrats and President Obama enough of a sense of self-preservation that they would avoid trying to ram healthcare through like this. I can't say that. In fact, I think they really are stupid enough to try it.
As for this practice being Constitutional, I don't see how it could be.
Article 1 Section 7 states,
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively
Keeping Article 1 Section 7 in mind, here's what the Democrats plan to do, as explained in this CNN article,
"The emerging consensus plan is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama. A package of changes that mirror the president's plan would then be passed through both chambers under reconciliation rules.
What the Democrats are doing is trying to avoid an up or down vote on a finalized bill. They want to pass an unfinished bill, send it to Obama, then use reconciliation to pass the bill with "amendments". "Amendments" meaning all of the crap they want in the legislation but can't actually get passed. It seems obvious that under this strategy the legislation will not be voted on by both parties, as required by Article 1 Section 7.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone! Drink responsibly and drink what the Irish drink (or at least enjoy a Dogfish Head)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Open Carry Win
Remember the case of Frank Hannan Rock? Well it turns out he won his lawsuit against the City of Racine, Wisconsin and the two officers involved. He was awarded $10K + attorney fees & court costs.
It's sad to say, but these kinds of abuses will continue unless the violators suffer consequences. That's why such lawsuits are so important.
Guns & Coffee has more, including a link to the decision.
It's sad to say, but these kinds of abuses will continue unless the violators suffer consequences. That's why such lawsuits are so important.
Guns & Coffee has more, including a link to the decision.
Quote of the Day - Channeling Sugarmann
"I think gun culture is vanishing. More and more people are living their lives without guns, and feel uncomfortable with them. And every time someone uses a gun to kill someone or attack the government this culture dies a little more. "
R. Stanton Scott
Unfortunately for Mr. Scott the gun culture is anything but vanishing. We have seen gains that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Draconian restrictions are being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Carry laws have been loosened in nearly all 50 states over my lifetime. We've seen record firearm and ammunition purchases over the last 3+ years, as well as a huge increase in the number of Americans getting CCW permits, particularly among women. We've seen the Brady's become sad pandas who can't get the major items on their agenda passed even with a Democratic Congress and virulently anti-gun President. The same can not be said for the Clinton years.
If anything I think firearms ownership and carry have become increasingly normalized. As people become exposed to the gun culture they learn how not to be afraid. I've seen this 1st hand with people I've brought to the range and I've experienced it myself. That kind of personal growth is empowering and infectious. It's why we win.
Like Josh Sugarmann and many others I suspect Mr. Scott tells himself these things because he sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is. I will continue to do whatever I can to strengthen the gun culture and widen the chasm between Mr. Scott's world and the real world.
In fact, I've got 3 new shooters lined up for later this spring.
R. Stanton Scott
Unfortunately for Mr. Scott the gun culture is anything but vanishing. We have seen gains that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Draconian restrictions are being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Carry laws have been loosened in nearly all 50 states over my lifetime. We've seen record firearm and ammunition purchases over the last 3+ years, as well as a huge increase in the number of Americans getting CCW permits, particularly among women. We've seen the Brady's become sad pandas who can't get the major items on their agenda passed even with a Democratic Congress and virulently anti-gun President. The same can not be said for the Clinton years.
If anything I think firearms ownership and carry have become increasingly normalized. As people become exposed to the gun culture they learn how not to be afraid. I've seen this 1st hand with people I've brought to the range and I've experienced it myself. That kind of personal growth is empowering and infectious. It's why we win.
Like Josh Sugarmann and many others I suspect Mr. Scott tells himself these things because he sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is. I will continue to do whatever I can to strengthen the gun culture and widen the chasm between Mr. Scott's world and the real world.
In fact, I've got 3 new shooters lined up for later this spring.
Monday, March 15, 2010
NRA Convention
So it looks as though I'll be able to head down to Charlotte this year to meet up with all you crazy gun nuts! Where's everyone staying this year? The rates at hotels right by the Convention Center look to be crazy expensive.
Also, anyone looking for a roommate?
Also, anyone looking for a roommate?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Quote of the Day - What They Think of Us
"Briefly stated, I think that general gun ownership is a bad idea, from both a “most people are too irresponsible, stupid, or just plain evil to own guns” practical standpoint and because I think placing the safety and freedom of society in the hands of individuals harms us normatively by making collective action more difficult. I do not believe that the Founders intended to protect an individual right to be armed, nor that such a right is not subject to modification by society. While our system must protect minorities against tyrannical majorities, rights are contestable and depend on social agreement, nor [sic] violent assertion of self-proclaimed entitlement."
- R. Stanton Scott
I find it sad how some anti-gunners think so poorly of their fellow Americans. If this is how you view others I guess it's not much of a stretch to support the denial of their rights. There are people whom I find morally reprehensible, but my personal opinion of someone does not justify calling for the violation of their rights.
Maybe we should instead place the freedom & safety of society in the hands of "philosopher-kings" in government. That's worked out really well for individual citizens throughout history....
- R. Stanton Scott
I find it sad how some anti-gunners think so poorly of their fellow Americans. If this is how you view others I guess it's not much of a stretch to support the denial of their rights. There are people whom I find morally reprehensible, but my personal opinion of someone does not justify calling for the violation of their rights.
Maybe we should instead place the freedom & safety of society in the hands of "philosopher-kings" in government. That's worked out really well for individual citizens throughout history....
Friday, March 12, 2010
Incapable of Determining Truth From Falsity
Blogger R. Stanton Scott of Foggy Bottom Line has responded to my criticism of his position with this post. I am quite comfortable saying that Mr. Scott is, as Joe puts it, incapable of determining truth from falsity. At this point he offers nothing new or thought-provoking. In fact, he seems to have found use for Joyce's new website
The Joyce Foundation - Astroturf on Demand *some assembly required.
Mr. Scott will also be the source of today's Quote of the Day.
The Joyce Foundation - Astroturf on Demand *some assembly required.
Mr. Scott will also be the source of today's Quote of the Day.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What's In Your Pockets?
Obviously I'm really late on this meme. Oh well, you get it anyway. Pictured are keys for the 6, free oil change card, American Eagle All Access Pass, beach house key, Acme card, various small keys, pepper spray and a State Line discount card for Microbrews.
Also pictured are my EDC knife and flashlight. The knife is a Kershaw Vapor, when I'm not carrying it I'll carry a Benchmade Mini Pika. Flashlight is a Streamlight Microstream. It's a great little flashlight, about half the length of a Bic pen and just slightly wider.
Then of course there's also my wallet, entry card for work, and the Iphone, which was used to take this picture.
Also pictured are my EDC knife and flashlight. The knife is a Kershaw Vapor, when I'm not carrying it I'll carry a Benchmade Mini Pika. Flashlight is a Streamlight Microstream. It's a great little flashlight, about half the length of a Bic pen and just slightly wider.
Then of course there's also my wallet, entry card for work, and the Iphone, which was used to take this picture.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Grandma is in the Hospital
I went to see my mom-mom in the hospital this morning. She was admitted a few days ago with pneumonia, everything went well, she was feeling good and was going to be released. She mentioned to the doctor that she couldn't feel her foot. Tests were done and it turns out she has massive clotting in that leg, bad clotting in the other leg and a tennis-ball sized tumor on her liver.
She's a tough old bird. She's survived a heart attack, a stroke, breast cancer, broken hip, a hip replacement and now pneumonia. Her attitude is good and she's in good spirits but the prognosis doesn't look good no matter what course of action we take.
I just had my Omi in the hospital and now this comes out of nowhere. I just hope bad things don't come in three's. Given his heart condition I'm worried about the strain this could put on my dad, especially if mom-mom passes.
She's a tough old bird. She's survived a heart attack, a stroke, breast cancer, broken hip, a hip replacement and now pneumonia. Her attitude is good and she's in good spirits but the prognosis doesn't look good no matter what course of action we take.
I just had my Omi in the hospital and now this comes out of nowhere. I just hope bad things don't come in three's. Given his heart condition I'm worried about the strain this could put on my dad, especially if mom-mom passes.
Friday, March 5, 2010
You Know Its Been Far Too Long Between Range Trips
When you've managed to lose your hearing protection. Yep, I've misplaced my muffs. Looks like I'll be spending tomorrow morning searching for them instead of going shooting.
Letting it Die
It would appear that the general strategy for the pro-gun crowd with regards to open carry and starbucks is to just "let it die." I could not agree more. We calmly and rationally made our point and that should be the end of it. More importantly, we made our point with our wallets and Starbucks Corporate took notice. (Isn't capitalism great?)
This Starbucks campaign was, in my opinion, a perfect example of good, clean, grassroots activism. We got our message across without hysterics and confrontation and without disrupting Starbucks store fronts. Let's keep it that way.
There's no reason to confront hysterical, emotional & irrational anti-gun protestors outside of Starbucks stores. Starbucks has made it quite clear on numerous occasions now that they want nothing to do with this controversy and are quite content to continue their long-standing of allowing lawful, paying customers to patronize their stores. We made our point by thanking them, now let's respect their wishes.
We've won this battle. Now we can sit on the sidelines and watch the anti-gunners hurt their own cause. I'm not saying don't go to Starbucks, or don't open carry there, just that we have nothing to gain by protesting or otherwise engaging the anti's in this situation. Go in, get your coffee and leave. The longer the anti's remain combative and disruptive towards Starbucks the better we end up looking in the end.
I've found that anti-gunners often find ways to make themselves look bad to 3rd party observers. Stay calm. Rationally and intelligently make your case and then let them froth at the mouth. It works when engaging anti-gun bloggers. I see no reason why the same basic strategy wouldn't apply in this instance.
Let them dig their grave and lie-in it.
This Starbucks campaign was, in my opinion, a perfect example of good, clean, grassroots activism. We got our message across without hysterics and confrontation and without disrupting Starbucks store fronts. Let's keep it that way.
There's no reason to confront hysterical, emotional & irrational anti-gun protestors outside of Starbucks stores. Starbucks has made it quite clear on numerous occasions now that they want nothing to do with this controversy and are quite content to continue their long-standing of allowing lawful, paying customers to patronize their stores. We made our point by thanking them, now let's respect their wishes.
We've won this battle. Now we can sit on the sidelines and watch the anti-gunners hurt their own cause. I'm not saying don't go to Starbucks, or don't open carry there, just that we have nothing to gain by protesting or otherwise engaging the anti's in this situation. Go in, get your coffee and leave. The longer the anti's remain combative and disruptive towards Starbucks the better we end up looking in the end.
I've found that anti-gunners often find ways to make themselves look bad to 3rd party observers. Stay calm. Rationally and intelligently make your case and then let them froth at the mouth. It works when engaging anti-gun bloggers. I see no reason why the same basic strategy wouldn't apply in this instance.
Let them dig their grave and lie-in it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Another Starbucks Statement
Here's what Starbucks had to say
"While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don't exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores. "
Basically they're just re-stating their original position. That position is "if you're complying with the law we welcome your business." They drove home that message quite clearly at the very end of their statement saying,
"we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers. "
The real question is, will the Brady Campaign and other anti-gunners listen, or will they continue to push the issue and disrupt Starbucks storefronts with "lie-ins?" My guess is the Brady's will ignore it, just as they ignored the original statement by Starbucks.
I guarantee you the last thing Starbucks wants is to have protests being held outside of their stores. This statement is their way of politely telling anti-gunners to knock it off.
"While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don't exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores. "
Basically they're just re-stating their original position. That position is "if you're complying with the law we welcome your business." They drove home that message quite clearly at the very end of their statement saying,
"we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers. "
The real question is, will the Brady Campaign and other anti-gunners listen, or will they continue to push the issue and disrupt Starbucks storefronts with "lie-ins?" My guess is the Brady's will ignore it, just as they ignored the original statement by Starbucks.
I guarantee you the last thing Starbucks wants is to have protests being held outside of their stores. This statement is their way of politely telling anti-gunners to knock it off.
Best Summary EVAR
Go read Laurel's summary of the McDonald oral arguments. Seriously, do it now!
She captures Justice Scalia's beatdown of Feldman perfectly. Other than Gura's statement to Sotomayor I think Scalia's exchange with Feldman might have been the most entertaining part of orals. Feldman did so poorly you almost have to feel bad for the guy.
The whole post is simply made of win!
UPDATE! - Now with pictures!
She captures Justice Scalia's beatdown of Feldman perfectly. Other than Gura's statement to Sotomayor I think Scalia's exchange with Feldman might have been the most entertaining part of orals. Feldman did so poorly you almost have to feel bad for the guy.
The whole post is simply made of win!
UPDATE! - Now with pictures!
McDonald
The Big Day was yesterday and I am cautiously optimistic. I've been busy at work and am still getting over a cold, so I didn't post about it yesterday. In fact, I haven't had the time to do much more than skim over the transcript, so you're not going to get much in this post either.
Here are my initial thoughts.
1. Gura's P&I argument was shot down immediately. The Court simply didn't want to hear it. I don't think this was that big of a misstep, and I think Gura handled himself quite well afterwards.
2. Clement did a better job than I'd expected
3. I think Breyer & Ginsberg are still solidly against us. Breyer quibbled about statistics and complained about the Heller decision. I wouldn't be surprised to see another 5-4 decision, with Sotomayor and Stevens being the other two dissenters.
4. Feldman spent a lot of time fumbling around aimlessly and Scalia took him to the woodshed on several occasions.
5. Kennedy seemed to come out strongly against Chicago's argument. He's the swing vote, and I'm more confident that he's on board with us than I was after oral argument in Heller.
Since this isn't a very substantive post, I suggest heading over to read what a few others had to say, including Dave Hardy.
Also, Alan Gura had this to say to Justice Sotomayor during oral arguments. Had this been a schoolyard argument a resounding "Ohhh SNAP" would have been heard from the crowd of onlookers. Thank god we've got Gura on our side!
"Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional."
- Alan Gura - Arguing before the Supreme Court in McDonald
Here are my initial thoughts.
1. Gura's P&I argument was shot down immediately. The Court simply didn't want to hear it. I don't think this was that big of a misstep, and I think Gura handled himself quite well afterwards.
2. Clement did a better job than I'd expected
3. I think Breyer & Ginsberg are still solidly against us. Breyer quibbled about statistics and complained about the Heller decision. I wouldn't be surprised to see another 5-4 decision, with Sotomayor and Stevens being the other two dissenters.
4. Feldman spent a lot of time fumbling around aimlessly and Scalia took him to the woodshed on several occasions.
5. Kennedy seemed to come out strongly against Chicago's argument. He's the swing vote, and I'm more confident that he's on board with us than I was after oral argument in Heller.
Since this isn't a very substantive post, I suggest heading over to read what a few others had to say, including Dave Hardy.
Also, Alan Gura had this to say to Justice Sotomayor during oral arguments. Had this been a schoolyard argument a resounding "Ohhh SNAP" would have been heard from the crowd of onlookers. Thank god we've got Gura on our side!
"Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional."
- Alan Gura - Arguing before the Supreme Court in McDonald
Monday, March 1, 2010
Drive-By Bayoneting
They're sure to be on the rise now that my friend Falnfenix has picked up three of these evil assault weapons. Teletubbies beware!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
