Just minutes ago the Supreme Court of the United States delivered their opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states in a 5-4 decision.

Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:

* Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
* Gun rights prevail
* The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
* Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
* The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
* The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
* Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
* Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
* The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
* Full Opinion is here.
* It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
* The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.

The ramifications of the opinion will play out in the gun rights vs. gun control debate going forward. This case (McDonald v. Chicago) was filed the day after the Heller decision was announced back in 2008. It will be interesting to see what new cases get filed given the results of this case. The gun rights lawyers are taking a step by step approach in their fight for the right to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty much what was expected. It appears Justice Thomas is the only one with the guts to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause which would have had far-reaching implications for law outside of the gun rights world. More later as the analysis begins.

BELLEVUE, WA – Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, will join attorney Alan Gura and Chicago resident Otis McDonald on the steps of the United States Supreme Court on Monday, June 28 to hear the court’s ruling in the historic McDonald v. City of Chicago gun rights case.

This important challenge to the Chicago handgun ban was mounted by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents, including Mr. McDonald, for whom the case is named.

“It is important for us to be at the Supreme Court when the ruling is handed down,” Gottlieb stated. “This could be a landmark ruling that incorporates the Second Amendment to the states, which will truly make the Second Amendment the law of the land,’ and thus bolster state constitutional right to bear arms provisions.

“I want to be there, representing the 650,000 SAF members and supporters, because this will be their victory,” he added. “Our members have generously supported this legal effort, and they will have earned it.

“I also want to join Otis McDonald, whose courageous challenge of this handgun ban, along with co-plaintiffs Adam Orlov, and David and Colleen Lawson, made this case possible,” Gottlieb said. “And certainly, I will want to stand with Alan Gura, whose skillful management of this case as it rose through the lower courts and finally was accepted for review by the high court laid the foundation for what we believe will be a victory for gun rights.”

Meanwhile, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, will also meet with reporters at the Hotel Allegro, 171 West Randolph Street, in Chicago following the high court’s ruling.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org
“Now the NRA are the big defenders of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right to bear arms. But yet they think it’s all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill, and frankly, I think it’s disappointing.” — House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), June 24, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010

Well, if there were any doubt as to what greased the skids for the DISCLOSE Act’s final passage… the quote above hits the nail on the head.

Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Boehner blasted the horse-trading that occurred behind the scenes — noting that certain groups were made exempt from the legislation in order to convince them to drop their opposition to H.R. 5175.

Republican Dan Lungren of California called it an “auction behind closed doors.” Some groups won, Lungren said, others lost.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) vilified the bill because of its ambiguity. He said that since the Federal Election Commission won’t issue regulations to implement the bill before the election, people will have to guess at what the new election law is. That’s because the government won’t be able to tell people what the law actually is… and if you guess wrong, you go to jail or get prosecuted.

Harper tagged liberals for trying to rush this bill (with all of its ambiguities) for immediate implementation so that Democrats can gag their opponents in the upcoming election. Why else, Harper asked, won’t Pelosi and company delay the implementation of the bill until the 2012 elections?

Another irony with the whole process surrounding this legislation is that while the bill is called the DISCLOSE Act, liberal Democrats did not reveal (until a couple of hours before the Rules Committee Vote) that an amendment had been inserted at the last minute to exempt labor unions from the requirements of the bill. By the way, many of these requirements would make it much more difficult for GOA to hold legislators accountable during an election year.

The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175) passed narrowly by a 219-206 vote. You can see how your Representative voted by going to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll391.xml

GOA thanks all its activists for their hard work on this bill. Don’t be discouraged, it is MUCH harder for us to kill legislation in that chamber. The fact that we came so close — only 7 votes needed to switch — means that we probably have the muscle to kill this in the Senate!

ACTION: Please urge your Senator to oppose the Disclose Act (H.R. 5175 and S. 3295). You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175 and S. 3295).

It is outrageous that the House of Representatives passed this legislation with a deal to exempt certain large organizations from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act. This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress’ reputation to unprecedented depths.

I was glad to see that Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which was especially aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act. “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else,” McConnell said.

“Just as it wasn’t the Democrats’ money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn’t theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball — it’s a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.

How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members. The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.

Vote no on H.R. 5175 or S. 3295.

Sincerely,

Tools of the Trade is proud to announce we are now a distributor for clothing and signage by 7.62 design.

Please browse their site then contact us for current pricing.

7.62 Design

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: “When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons.”

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: “I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available.”

Keith Olbermann, who usually can’t be topped for absurdity: “Organizations like the NRA … are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country.”

“Trying to?” Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders are evil, but that’s for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means — hold onto your seat — less crime.

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don’t often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren’t reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna’s parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She’s confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels.

What happened?

John Lott, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed. A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed. Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims.

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someones at home.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor’s prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

Despite my earlier bias, I now understand that striking down those laws will probably save lives.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

“Gun Owners of America has been one of the key players in opposing the DISCLOSE Act.” — Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The ability of American citizens to communicate with their elected officials is one of the most important rights that help preserve our freedoms.  In fact, of all the forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, political speech is at the top of the list.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court said earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, when it ruled unconstitutional huge portions of the McCain-Feingold law, otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act.

Now, in an effort to undo the victory at the Supreme Court, liberals in Congress are attempting to pass the so-called DISCLOSE Act, which would severely limit the ability of GOA to communicate to our members and the general public.

This unconstitutional bill could come to the floor of the House as early as Thursday.

Sadly, as we reported yesterday, some in the pro-gun community have abandoned the principle of protecting the free speech rights of all Americans, so long as their ox is not being gored in this instance.

The NRA, which had previously opposed the DISCLOSE Act, has now accepted a deal to exempt that organization from the bill.

This is a startling about-face by the association.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of political speech in Citizens United, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre praised the decision, saying, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us…. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s a far cry from the NRA statement to Congress this week regarding legislation specifically designed to undo that Supreme Court decision.

“On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 [DISCLOSE Act] would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech,” reads the statement.

“As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.”

Apparently it’s ok to “carve out” a little free speech if you’re in the role of the “elitists.”

But the misguided NRA exemption will leave millions and millions of gun owners and sportsmen belonging to dozens of different organizations out in the cold.

We cannot allow this to happen.  An attack on our First Amendment rights is a direct assault on our Second Amendment rights.  After all, if GOA can’t alert you about legislation affecting your Second Amendment rights, then we cannot protect those rights.

Of course, that’s precisely what the politicians in Washington want.  Shut out the voices of the “commoners” like gun owners and Tea Party activists who are coming to — in the words of Senate candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky — “take our government back!”

There’s a reason the Bill of Rights is considered as an entire unit, and an attack on one part of the Constitution poses a threat to the whole document.

In short, if GOA loses this battle, all political organizations — of any size — will ultimately lose.

ACTION: Please ask your congressman to vote against the anti-gun DISCLOSE Act.  This bill could come to the floor of the House as early as Thursday, June 17, 2010.  Here’s what you can do:

1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Urge the NRA to change its position and stand with Gun Owners of America.  You know that GOA is the organization that consistently refuses to compromise on principle.  Even still, GOA has fought alongside the NRA many times to fight unconstitutional legislation, and it is imperative that we fight side-by-side on this issue as well.  It has often been said that, “We either hang together or we will hang alone.”  But impress upon the NRA management that being the last one hung doesn’t make the situation any better.  You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

Please oppose the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175).

The manner in which this bill is moving forward is as despicable as the health care bill — with backroom deals and special favors being doled out in order to ram this down the throats of the American people.

This bill is a threat to the privacy of individuals and, by gagging the voices of groups like Gun Owners of America, it is silencing my voice as well.

My ability to protect my Second Amendment rights relies on the First Amendment’s right to freely and openly communicate with government officials, who at one time were called “public servants.”

I agree with GOA that this bill is an unconstitutional sham that will have a chilling effect upon my free speech.

Please vote NO on HR 5175.

Sincerely,

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

We alerted you last week to the very dangerous DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), where liberal House Democrats are trying to gag their political opponents.

Well, there have been some late-breaking developments in the fight to kill this bill, but you’re not going to believe what’s happening.  This is what Politico.com reported yesterday:

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.
So if the NRA gets an exemption for itself, it will not oppose the anti-freedom DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).  This legislation is designed to overturn major parts of the recent Supreme Court decision which restored the ability of groups like GOA to freely criticize elected officials during a campaign.

But the NRA would no longer oppose the bill once they’ve won an exemption for themselves.  As reported by Politico.com:

The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.

Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.

The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.

In addition to benefiting the NRA, this “exemption” amendment will benefit Blue Dog Democrats who will be given a green light to support the Obama-Pelosi backed bill:

Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”

But here’s the rub, the special exemption amendment will ONLY benefit the NRA and no other groups whatsoever.  It will leave all other groups who are currently in Obama’s crosshairs dangling in the wind:

The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups [like Gun Owners of America].

We are in a political war, and our opponents are trying to change the rules of the game by gagging those groups that are their political enemies.  Some might say that the requirement to disclose our membership is not a gag rule, but it most certainly is.  Gun Owners of America will NOT do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our members!

Gun owners know the dangers of being registered, as it has often proven to be the first step towards gun confiscation — which, by the way, is why it’s lamentable that the management of the NRA is selling out its members for the proverbial bowl of pottage.  (Go to http://tinyurl.com/2uw9sm9 to see what a leading Capitol Hill blog has written about this sell-out.)

We’re positive that regular members of the NRA would never want this to happen — where all the other pro-gun organizations (like GOA) that are fighting to protect our rights would be gagged, while special favors are cut for one group in particular.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with NRA and all the other pro-gun groups when they are fighting to defend our Second Amendment freedoms.  We all have to stick together if we are going to win these battles.

We’re not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters… but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and we’re positive that the NRA membership would not be happy with it.  This cannot stand!

ACTION: Please do everything you can to kill this dangerous DISCLOSE Act legislation (HR 5175).  Here’s what you can do:

1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and urge them to oppose this legislation and to rate any congressman who votes in favor of HR 5175 as having cast an ANTI-GUN vote.  Urge them not to sell out our constitutional freedoms just because they can get an exemption for themselves.

3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights.  You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to this new threat.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

There are reports that a deal may be cut to exempt one large organization from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act.  This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress’ reputation to unprecedented depths.

On the Senate side, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which is aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act.  “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else,” McConnell said.

“Just as it wasn’t the Democrats’ money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn’t theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball — it’s a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.

How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members.  The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.

Vote no on HR 5175.

Sincerely,