The Occasional Observer

It's always tough to take these veepstakes articles too seriously. McCain's assistant's friend's pet told my brother's girlfriend that he's picking Huckabee, etc.

But it's tough to deny Mike Allen. The guy knows what time it is. And whether it's because the campaign is floating a trial balloon, or Mike just got a scoop, the word he's hearing is that Mitt is first in line for V.P.

That's pretty big news.

I'm not 100% sure if it's a great pick from a vote getting perspective. But from a GOP unifying perspective, and a governing perspective, I think it would be a great pick. I'd personally be pretty psyched, because it would resurrect Mitt's presidential chances in 4 years. And let's face it, those are chances that were pretty much dead-and-buried three months ago.

Scrumtuous or sin?

Don't know if I've posted this yet but this is vital survival info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QEUegcz-I

In fact, the entire run of Red Vs. Blue is highly recommended. It's 100 episodes total and can be found on youtube (just search for episode 1 to start and follow the narrative--I'm up to 34 and watch them a few at a time...).

Also rather entertaining is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19KoKVkTNF0

Haven't watched the sequels to that yet. At least now I know what I'm doing tomorrow...

It's worth the 5 minutes to watch this whole video, even if it's just to see Tandcredo's expressions in the background. It just goes to show how right some libertarians really are: http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

On SCOTUS blog, Alan Morrison of Stanford Law details the 3 big open issues that the Court did NOT address in its opinion:

1. Will the ruling apply to states?

This case involved D.C., so it avoided the whole issue of whether the individual right found in the 2nd Amendment keeps the federal government from banning guns, or whether it prevents any state from doing likewise.

2. What standard must the courts apply when determining whether a gun restriction is valid or unconstitutional?

3. What impact does this have on existing gun control rules?

This point seems to derive directly from 1 & 2.

From pgs 55-56, addressing whether machine guns may be banned:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our nterpretation of the right.

So on this last point, I would infer that Scalia is saying that the "protected right" is specifically tied to rifles and pistols. This fits with the prefatory clause, because rifles and pistols were used by the militia at the time. The right has not changed to encompass machine guns and bombers. The protected right is what it was before (rifles and pistols), so it is merely the connective logic to the militia that breaks down as military weapons have evolved. The "protected right" will not evolve to include new classes of arms--machine guns (or rocket launchers, nukes, etc.)--rather, it only evolves to allow for newer types of guns within the same class.

If I understand him correctly.

From page 11, refuting that the right is limited to 18th century weaponry:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

From page 30, on why the right is not tied to membership in the/a militia:

If, as they [the District of Columbia] believe, the Second Amendment
right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force...

Thus, if petitioners [the District of Columbia] are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

Key parts from the syllabus:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...

The prefatory clause ["A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"] comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons...

According to preliminary reports by the SCOTUS blog, Scalia's opinion, unencumbered by any concurring opinions (here's looking at you, AK), has affirmed the DC Circuit Court, and ruled that the second amendment created an indidivudal right to own a firearm.

Can't wait to read the opinion...

NewsWEAK tries to defend their recent poll claiming Obama has a 15-point lead, in light of Gallup showing dead even. They point out some differences between the way they and Gallup collect data, but in the end cannot provide any reason why you should believe their poll.