Mukasey: "Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right"

Per The New York Times:

Michael B. Mukasey was sworn in as attorney general this afternoon, less than a day after winning Senate confirmation despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terror detainees.

Robert Levy had advocated Mukasey disclose his position on the Second Amendment. I'd wondered the same thing, and expressed concerns that he backs Rudy Giuliani for president, and is backed in turn by Chuck Schumer for the top law post.

Presumably we now have an indication of Mukasey's position on 2A, albeit from an unlikely source, Senator Dick Durbin, in his explanation of why he opposed confirmation:

Take another unsettled legal question: whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms. Here is what Judge Mukasey told me: “Based on my own study, I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

In other words, Judge Mukasey agrees with the Bush Administration when it comes to retroactive immunity and the Second Amendment.

Note I'm not focusing on the waterboarding charges here or making any proclamations about the desirability of this appointment or Judge Mukasey's potential as AG. I'm merely pointing out his reported position on the Second Amendment, something I have been looking for but have not previously found.

Excluding all other considerations, and with the caveat that this is based only on the rhetoric, it would appear gun owners could have done worse.

UPDATE: Looks like The Washington Post knew about his leanings over a week ago and we all missed it, although they don't have the above quote. Here's the relevant bit from their story:

Mr. Mukasey's 172 pages of written responses to senators' questions leave no doubt that he is a staunchly conservative lawyer. He believes the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms.

Realize, of course, that what WaPo considers to be "staunchly conservative" is what, in 1960, would have been considered a mainstream Democrat. And note the all-too-common "bestows" assumption, as if an unalienable right independent of government proclamation is so difficult a concept to grasp.

Mukasey for AG?

President Bush plans to choose Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan, to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Republicans close to the process told The Politico.

How does this bode for gun owners? At this point, I don't have anything but inferences--look for more to come to light in the coming days.

First, we know the guy is for Giuliani. A Constitutionalist who believes in the Bill of Rights could not be.

More troubling is this guy who wanted him on the Supreme Court and/or as AG:

In June 2003, Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer submitted Mukasey's name, along with four other Republicans or Republican appointees, as a suggestion for President George W. Bush to consider for nomination to the Supreme Court. On the March 18, 2007, episode of Meet the Press, Schumer again suggested Mukasey as a potential Attorney General nominee who, "by [his] reputation and character, shows that [he] put rule of law first."

I haven't had time to look into the record of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as it pertains to guns, or what Judge Mukasey's history is--I'm hoping someone on our side with legal expertise will weigh in and give us all some insights.

Mukasey's Paradox

Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers. [More]

Boy, we're just full of paradoxes today, like the one where you can't exercise your rights without surrendering your rights.

How come these things never seem to work to the advantage of the governed? Perhaps another paradox...?

My head hurts. I think I'll go back in time and kill an ancestor to make it stop.

[Via RyanMG]

Common Ground

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

That must be why he is requiring them to disarm to show fealty during the perversely-named "Celebration of American Values" at the annual meeting. And I'm waiting for the first apologist to come in here with a straight face and tell me that's not his choice and not totally within the control of his orders and actions. What's his security detail gonna do--arrest him?

Guess what, gun owners--we don't have a horse in this race. You can rationalize otherwise ad nauseum and that won't change. The reason we don't have a choice is because we have allowed ourselves to be used for years and never insisted on one. The Republicans are counting on gun owners being so desperate and afraid they can present us with anything, and Wayne & Co. will help gussy it up. They've been prepping us to swallow this for some months now.

Oh, but McCain voted against the "assault weapons" ban . True, but more recently than that, he told the Los Angeles Times he "Supports ban on certain assault weapons...McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details."

The AP also reported "McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows."

Vote for McCain and you'll be voting for "The Vote Freedom First President" on steroids. Just look at what's happening now, with Bush appointee "Pro-Gun" Mukasey running DoJ, and Bush/Kennedy/Kerry nominee "Maximum Mike" running BATFU. Yesterday's Olofson outrage happened on his "the buck stops here" watch. They're not even masking the contempt any more. They know they can rely on gun owner Judenrat "leadership" to take whatever they slop on the dish and serve it up to the membership as good for them.

And they're betting you will eat it.

UPDATE: FatWhiteMan has a copy of the Celebration of Amerikan Values disarmament edict email.

And I forgot to add: NRA could always say "No dice," too, if they wanted to. Go speak somewhere else--maybe to La Raza. That'd not only make headlines, the egg on his face would be priceless.

Courageous "gun rights leaders" would. If you think it through, he needs us worse than we need him--unless you're one of those who say we're going to "lose our gun rights," that is, surrender them with a whimper.

I Don't Get It

When then-Attorney General John Ashcroft opined the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it evoked worldwide headlines, trumpeting from the "gun lobby" and nothing less than raving hysteria from the antis.

New AG Michael B. Mukasey claims the same position and...anybody hear that pin drop? Not a word in any "authorized journalist" news outlet and no triumphant or frothing in rage press releases from the interest groups.

Arguing that you don't believe he's sincere when it comes to "shall not be infringed" misses the point. Ashcroft had all kinds of escape hatches installed, too, but it nonetheless was news.

Nice Picture of Mike, Though...

Such a theory ignores the fact that “gun walking” tactics were used in ATF’s Phoenix office during the George W. Bush administration. [More]

No, we who have been covering this from the start, and who maintain contact with actual inside sources among street-level operatives, as opposed to administration talking point dispensers, have not ignored what came before.

Matter of fact, I'm the guy who introduced the Wide Receiver CI to House investigators. And there are significant differences between attempting to monitor controlled deliveries, and inviting joint operation surveillance from the Mexicans, and one that just lets guns walk without telling them a thing--and without even trailing on our side of the line.

But then you know that. You just choose not to mention it.

Then there's that inconvenient email TPM Muckraker itself posted, because that's where I got it from, which kind of shows you know better (not to mention kind of validates that "administration talking point dispenser" observation):

A later email from Anne Marie Paskalis, senior counsel in charge of field operations on Oct. 5 [2007] indicated that the U.S. Attorney’s office “is not yet fully on board with this investigation.”

And there's one other corroborating inconvenient truth: that CI says it had nothing to do with the administration.

But, by all means, let's follow the suggestions of the Democrat cover-up machine and drag in Mukasey.  I'd be interested to see if everyone who howled about his paradox will demand applying it to Fast and Furious.

As an aside, boy that is sure one ugly, hateful mob of comment posters over there at on the lefty site.  Nice to see they're so personally miserable.

South of the Border with the Bush-Brady DoJ

The US has said it will give Mexico access to an electronic database to trace weapons smuggled from the US to powerful drug gangs across the border.

Well if this doesn't solve the problem, nothing will.

At least nothing in the interest of either government to explore...

But it does reveal how AG Mukasey does indeed embrace the same views on the Second Amendment as the "Vote Freedom First President."

[Via Ahab]

Report points to Clinton-era gunwalking

It does lead to some interesting questions, particularly for those demanding to expand investigations to include the Bush-era “Operation Wide Receiver” program and his then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The Twin Cities operation took place under Janet Reno’s watch under President Bill Clinton. [More]

Today's Gun Rights Examiner report wonders if it's also fair to asks what did they knowand when did they know it?