.. on Obama's gun prevarication.  To summarize, Obama knows he can't win the election if he seriously pisses off gun owners -- so he's running from his old record in the race.  But what will he do once he's in office? Look at where his campaign contributions are coming from.  Specifically, two law firms representing patent holders on "smart gun" and "ballistic fingerprinting" technology have made contributions to the Obama campaign totalling nearly $700,000. 

If Obama wins, can there be any doubt that he will attempt to pay off those supporters with favorable policies?  He won't even need to be specific about it; the patents already filed mean that his supporters will profit from any law requiring the use of either or both technologies, without any need for embarassing earmarks.

The Volokh Conspiracy has a case that cites the dissent in Parker (the original case, that the Supreme Court affirmed in Heller) for the proposition that citizens of the District of Columbia do not have Second Amendment rights. 

Accordingly, both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently held that several constitutional provisions explicitly referring to citizens of ?States? do not apply to citizens of the District.?

This is exactly the sort of judicial malfeasance that transformed what should have been a minor victory for the 2nd Amendment in US v Miller into 60 years of oppression.  There are lots of rulings that cite US v Miller for things that contradict any possible reading of that decision.  If we aren't careful we'll see exactly that same result with Heller -- especially if the Supreme Court's composition becomes more liberal over time. 

As noted on the Conspiracy, the outcome itself is not incorrect -- Heller does not offer those charged under "felon in possession" laws much recourse. 

I don't know that there's anything we can really do about this, other than hoping an appeals court takes notice and rewrites the ruling with a similar result.

... that is, the 8 years that Obama spent as a director of the Joyce Foundation, funding anti-gun causes in a frankly underhanded manner.

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the BATFE for violating the First Amendment by illegally detaining someone in retaliation for writing she had on her vehicle: "Remember the children of Waco" and "Boo ATF". 

What on earth makes them think they can get away with this?

I'm a little surprised that the ACLU took the case; they don't like anything that even smells like the 2nd Amendment.  Of course, this one is purely a 1st Amendment case, but even so, I would have expected them to find some excuse.  Credit where credit is due.

Radley Balko, a left-leaning libertarian, linked to an article ("False Allegations of Intimidation by Obama Campaign") purporting to debunk allegations of intimidation by Missouri officials.  The article itself needs a debunking.  The whole issue started with this letter sent to Missouri television stations that aired the NRA's ad.  Let's examine the important quotes from the letter:

Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a "right to command the use of broadcast facilities.  See CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 113 (1973).  Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access.  See Felix v Westinghouse Radio Stations, 186 F.2d 1, 6 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 909 (1950).

Moreover, you have a duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising."  Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading, or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.C.2d 623 (1961).  Failure to prevent the airing of "false and misleading advertising" may be "probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility."  Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

This advertisement is false, misleading, and deceptive.  We request that you immediately cease airing this advertisement.

The letter is signed by the General Counsel of Obama's campaign.  So, let's hit the bullet points:

• Signed by the official legal counsel of the Obama campaign
• Cites legal cases supposedly supporting Obama's position
• Uses pseudo-legal language referencing the cited cases to "request" stations cease airing the NRA's advertisement.
  
• Broadcasters are licensed by the FCC, which in the past has imposed significant requirements on political content.
• The news report on the "Truth Squad" in Missouri contains the quote, from the anchor, "They plan to respond immediately to any acts that might violate Missouri ethics laws."
• The "Truth Squad" also includes "others, prosecutors and sheriffs", according the Obama campaign.

In defense, the prosecutors who actually give on-air quotes do talk about responding by "getting the truth out".  But in the context of the Obama campaign's legal threats, combined with the selective use of "prosecutors and sheriffs" in the Obama's campaign's official statement, tells a tale of intended intimidation that is difficult to deny.

If your business depended on a federal license to operate, would you feel comfortable ignoring legal threats from the possible future president -- especially with local prosecutors appearing on television in support of his claims?

That's how we got the term "chilling effect".  Radley, you should be ashamed of yourself for not getting the whole story.

... we had better hope Sarah has this study at her fingertips. 

Gun shows don't contribute to increased homicide or suicide rates, according to results of a study announced Wednesday by the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

The joint University of Michigan and University of Maryland examination of gun death data in the weeks surrounding more than 3,400 California and Texas gun shows concluded tighter regulation of the flea market-like operations did nothing to reduce firearms-related deaths in the following month."

McCain has in the past voted to close the fictional "gun show loophole."  With any luck, he'll be able to read this study and realize that even if there was a loophole, it's not doing any harm. 

Although Texas has been a shall-issue concealed carry state for some time, many people are surprised to learn that it's a fairly restrictive state regarding carry of weapons otherwise.   For example, you're not allowed to carry a sword.  Why not?  Who knows?  (There has to be a special exemption for renaissance festivals).  Of course, this state of affairs is really embarassing to Texas gun rights activists, so there's a petition to fix the problem.  You can sign the Texas Open Carry Petition here.  It's gaining a lot of steam thanks to the Heller decision.  I got the tip from a Keyboard and a .45 (and believe it or not, listening to a local radio news program reminded me).

Hopefully this will be the first of many such cases.  No one should be thrown in jail because the BATFE lost their records.  I got the tip from David Hardy.

The Smallest Minority has a very educational video from a Soviet defector on ideological subversion -- a process that is even now almost complete within our society.  Watch it.  It makes sense.

... another in a series of post-Heller lawsuits.  

Oleg Volk has been forced to take legal action to regain control of TheHighRoad.org.  I don't know Oleg very well -- we've exchanged a very few emails -- but his work on gun rights is extensive and valuable.  I don't know the other person involved at all.

In a press release describing a petition they delivered to various restaurant chains, MADD characterized the American Beverage Institute as having a "long, sad history of fighting to keep drunk drivers on the road."  This because ABI had the unmitigated gall to oppose ".08 BAC, sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers."

More gall, please.  Fewer checkpoints.  It's in the Constitution.

Hat tip to SaysUncle for the story.  He notes they have basically become prohibitionists, using drunk driving as an excuse to harass people who drink.  He's right.