Olson Reverses Polarity--For the Time Being...

The US Supreme Court, with the enigmatic John Roberts at the helm, has ducked again, refusing "to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital."

I've often wondered--if Sarah Brady's son went on a rampage with that rifle she bought him--would she publicly demand a lawsuit against the store and manufacturer?

Anyway, the thing that particularly caught my eye in this story--aside from the unbelievable judicial arrogance of Michael Farrell-- is who "the lawyer for the gun companies" is--our old pal Ted Olson.

That's the same Ted Olson who argued for the government (after John Ashcroft's lip service declaring the Second Amendment an individual right--except for all those "compelling state interests" that negate the "shall not be infringed" part) and against the right to keep and bear arms in the Emerson, Haney and Bean cases.

Gee, who would have ever thought the gun industry would retain someone who isn't squarely in their camp? I mean, it's not like they should have learned better from Robert Ricker or anything...

If Olson is "Frontrunner," What Place Will Gun Owners Take?

Translation: The "Vote Freeedom First" president has a grand opportunity to replace a gungrabber.

So is "frontrunner" Ted Olson the 2A pitbull some would have us believe?

He argued against the Supreme Court hearing the Emerson case. OK, I can hear the apologists now: since the 5th Circuit had already ruled in favor of an individual interpretation, why risk it?

Olson also asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in the Haney case. More smart politics, right? We'd never win a machine gun case?

Olson argued against "restoring" a gun owner's rights in the Bean case--a man convicted in Mexico of something that's not a crime in the US--having a small amount of ammunition in his vehicle. As I noted on more than one occasion, it would be equivalent to one of former Olson boss John Ashcroft's fellow Pentecostals being convicted of having an unauthorized Bible in China, being classified a "felon" as a result, and losing their gun rights here for it.

Being lead counsel for gun manufacturers sued by DC may count for something, but lawyers represent clients all the time--that proves nothing in terms of convictions.

And being a key supporter of a notorious gungrabber doesn't help establish confidence that we're dealing with a man who puts fidelity to Constitutional principles first.

Is it really so damn hard to find someone who does?

The Bush Administration Used to Fight for Gun Control, Too

Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes [More]

Remember Ted Olson?

Mr. Quigley would like to say a few words.

"Vote Freedom First" President Speaks FOR "the Record"

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC Circuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.

And this is filed in the name of the Solicitor General. [More]

The brief is here.

I trust no one is surprised by this fraudulent neocon pawn in the White House? You shouldn't be. They made their position crystal clear back when then-Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted briefs arguing that "the Second Amendment [is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

And naturally, government--the body the Second Amendment was intended as a people's check and balance against--is the arbiter of who and what. We've just seen the path for half of the pincer cleared--this is the other. They've been telegraphing their moves while we squabble over arcane details.

Anyone surprised by this latest rape attempt hasn't been paying attention. Republican Kool-Aid (who else you gonna vote for?) has a tendency to blur the vision and hearing. Mix that with a preponderance of denial and just about any sleight of law is possible.

Think about the language: "types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was what they said back when they asked the court not to hear Emerson. Here's what they say now:

Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms. Those statutes include restrictions on private possession of types of firearms that are particularly susceptible to criminal misuse. The United States has a substantial interest in the constitutionality and effective implementation of those laws.

At least they're consistent.

Tell me--with a straight face--that can't--and won't--be interpreted to mean any type of firearm, depending on what a particular jurisdiction thinks it can get away with, and that stare decisis won't then be used to bind communities where such sentiment does not prevail. That's what the federal courts do.

I see people already commenting that this or that Republican presidential candidate would not allow this on his watch. I hope they're right, but now it's time to find out. Anyone with contacts in any of the campaigns, let's make a concerted effort to see which one(s) will issue a clear, immediate and unequivocal denunciation of this latest treacherous act of sabotage--and pledge to not only rein in the "Justice" Department, but to start the process to repeal the very laws we have to march through bloody hell to take to court--only to have the doors slammed in our faces when we get there.

UPDATE: Uh-oh. I'm in trouble now...

We're the Only Ones Experimenting Enough

A Kansas City police sergeant is in serious condition after being injured in an accidental shooting early Tuesday at the Kansas City Police Department crime lab. [More]

I always wondered where Ted Olson had landed.

[Via bondmen]

Guns: The Great Domestic Abuse Enabler

Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn't shut up were the scourge of the land.

Joan Burbick is so impressed with her own ignorance, she's positively authoritative about it.

To believe her, you must believe that men who wish to see you armed and trained think it will make you easier to beat. And as for rock salt being a superior home defense weapon than maneuverable military pattern firearms, I guess the foremost experts in the world--the guys who defend the world's most famous house*--need to reassess their choices.

There's no recognition that sometimes false charges are vindictively filed, no indignation over denial of rights without establishment of guilt, no admission that, sometimes, it is the women who find themselves legally restrained and disabled for life--over incidents as trivial as tearing a pocket, or throwing down some keys.

And for the record, Ashcroft's Justice Department, through Solicitor General Ted Olson, filed a brief defending the disarmament statute:

ROBERT COTTROL: Well, the Justice Department is charged with enforcing the law, which includes defending the constitutionality of federal statutes. You have the Emerson case in the 5th circuit where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that although the second amount is an individual right, that it is nonetheless reasonable regulation to prevent individuals who are under a restraining order because of domestic violence issues from owning guns. Dr. Emerson, who was the defendant in the case, is appealing that to the Supreme Court and it is, of course, up to the federal government to defend the statute.

The position of this Administration is that of the 5th Circuit, namely that the law is constitutional, because although this Administration supports the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, it sees the statute as reasonable regulation. So this is within the normal processes of the Justice Department defending a federal statute.

UPDATE: Oh lookee--gun ownership is also "a white male political power play."

BuzzFlash said it, I believe it, that settles it.

I think Joan the Authority has some hostility issues.

-------------------

[*I got the White House example from Ed Monk]