It’s pretty simple. No guns within 1000 feet of a federal politician. This means that those folks who feel the need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights won’t be allowed into political rallies any more.

Good.

The National Review asks King some leading questions…

King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledges that his legislation, if it had been on the books, might not have prevented the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) and others. “Maybe not in this case, but in others it could be prevention,” he argues.

“It would be helpful to the extent that if the police saw him with a bulge in his pocket or saw him touching his pocket or rubbing his jacket, it could raise their suspicion. Then they could go over, and if he had [a gun], they could make him leave,” King says. “But do I expect someone like [Jared Lee Loughner] to follow the law? Absolutely not.”

What about a situation where a gun is fully concealed and law-enforcement officials are unable to spot anything suspicious? “In that case, then this wouldn’t work, but there can be cases where it will. Would it work in five percent of cases? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? I don’t know, but I do believe it would certainly work in some instances. I don’t see the downside.”

Yes, National Review…people are sneaky and break laws. But some common sense measures can be put into place to possibly stop similar things from happening again. Laws are designed to act as a deterrent, not a cure all. If somebody wants to do something crazy, they will.

Still, they go on to cite the gun owner who could have…possibly…maybe taken Loughner out as an example of why you’d want armed citizens near public officials…

In Tucson, onlooker Joe Zamudio was armed when he witnessed the developing scene in the parking lot. Zamudio, within seconds, had his hand on his gun, ready to shoot, in case Loughner was not subdued. Does King think citizens have the right to be armed, and respond, during unexpected violent outbursts in public?

Note the framing of the question there. It turns from having a gun near a politician to a broader “do citizens have the right to be armed and respond to violent outbursts in public?” Of course they do, but can their be exceptions? Yes. Take the First Amendment. Yes, you have the right to be a complete ass if you want, but the moment you start to defame or libel somebody…guess what? That ain’t free speech. Also, you can’t incite violence or panic with your speech…or plan a crime…or any number of other things.

Also, there’s a reason we have cops. Sure, in the absence of security it may be better to have armed citizens there, but the problem there is you have no idea if they’re trained or not. And maybe it’s just me, but that’s a big reason why I hate conceal and carry laws. How do I know the guy who’s carrying a gun is a) responsible, b) mentally stable and c) a good aim?

One other thing detail that should be highlighted…that armed Arizonian wouldn’t have stopped Loughner either. Only more gun control that would have prevented Loughner from easily obtaining a firearm and bullets would have. Of course nobody wants to talk about that.

King responds appropriately…

“It’s more helpful if you had security in the area,” King replies. “If something did start, and police were firing, I would not want a civilian firing at the same time. When we balance the equities, I’m saying there is a greater good to be obtained by keeping weapons out of that thousand-foot zone.”

The greater good? What’s that?

I think it’s pretty clear that the shooting of Dem Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords earlier today by Jared Lee Loughner was politically motivated.

Watch the videos he made.

The first deals with his twisted, nearly incomprehensible thoughts on currency and government control…

The second reveals a lot more. Apparently he is (or was) a military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix, talks a bit about terrorism, talks about the Constitution, calls the current laws treasonous, and then says the government is involved in mind control.

Also, it looks like he had another YouTube account and the following was posted on one of the videos….

=|
If there’s no flag in the constitution then the flag in the film is unknown.
There’s no flag in the constitution.
Therefore, the flag in the film is unknown.
Burn every new and old flag that you see.
Burn your flag!
I bet you can imagine this in your mind with a faster speed.
Watch this protest in reverse!
Ask the local police; “What’s your illegal activity on duty?”.
If you protest the government then there’s a new government from protesting.
There’s not a new government from protesting.
Thus, you aren’t protesting the government.
There’s something important in this video: There’s no communication to anyone in this location.
You shouldn’t be afraid of the stars.
There’s a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth, there’s no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It’s with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a woodpecker. This new bird and there’s only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government?
I want you to imagine a comet or meteoroid coming through the atmosphere.
On the other hand, welcome yourself to the desert: Maybe your ability to protest is from the brainwash of the current government structure.

And here’s the video…

More as it develops…

The motives of the coward who shot a bunch of people (including Dem Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) down in Arizona earlier today are not known, but I think we can all agree that campaign literature like this certainly doesn’t help…

Yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin. This was the tweet announcing the ridiculous image above…

This type of stuff is completely irresponsible. Especially when followed up with this from Giffords’ opponent Jesse Kelly…

Both of these images have been taken off of their respective websites, but h/t to FDL for rounding them up.

The last report is that Giffords is in surgery, but 5 are dead.

One additional piece of info…

In March, hours after Giffords voted in favor of health care reform, the front door of Giffords’ Tucson office was shattered, also a side glass panel.

More as it develops…

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the MacDonald v Chicago case this morning. McDonald is the first case to examine if the Second Amendment rights secured for citizens in federal jurisdictions also apply to citizens in the various states.

In 2008, the Court held in District of Columbia v Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. But the narrow interpretation of that ruling meant the decision applied only to federal enclaves.

Some of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights are extended to the states through the Due Process Clause of Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, individual states secured rights for their citizens in different ways. For instance, the Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, but state-sponsored religion was still tolerated. By 1833, Massachusetts severed its ties to the state church, ending established state churches in America. The most prominent example of differing state treatment of individual rights center around the institution of slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a remedy.

But the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases ruled that the extension of rights via the Fourteenth Amendment did not necessarily restrict the actions of a state or local government entity. Since then, individual rights have been applied selectively through state legislative action and court decisions.

Court watchers are wondering if the Justices’ comments during questioning foreshadow the decision. McDonald is the only case challenging local gun laws that is focused on extending all Constitutional rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. As Wikipedia summarizes:

McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it is asking the court to overturn the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases. Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If overturned, the Selective Incorporation process would be moot and unnecessary, as the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would be applied against the states.

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case has garnered the attention and support of liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest is that if Slaughter-House is overturned, it is possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would be applied against the states automatically

The Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy was instrumental in bringing Heller to the Court, and the issue of how the Court decides the case is as important to Cato as the decision itself. After today’s hearing, Cato.org comments:

From the initial questioning through the end, it was quite clear that those living in Chicago — and, by extension, New York, San Francisco, and other places with extreme gun restrictions — will soon be able to rest easy, knowing that they will be able to have guns with which to protect themselves. Unfortunately, the Court did not seem inclined to adopt the arguments propounded by petitioners’ counsel Alan Gura (and supported by Cato) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the way to go. Chief Justice Roberts expressed reluctance at having to overturn the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and other justices joined in concerns over how activist judges would use the Clause if the Court revived it — even if that were the path that hewed more closely to the constitution’s true meaning.

This turn of events is unfortunate because reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause, far from giving judges free reign to impose their policy views, would actually tie them closer to the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. As it stands now — and as it seems will be the case after McDonald is decided — many of our most cherished rights are protected only to the extent that judges are willing to label them as sufficiently “fundamental” to warrant such protection. That is an unprincipled jurisprudence and one that hurts the rule of law.

It appears the Second Amendment rights secured to citizens in federal territory will be applied to the citizens of the various states, but only through Selective Incorporation. This will be a narrow decision, then, that applies only to the Second Amendment, and not to other rights secured in the Constitution.

Cross posted to FrankHagan.com

Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?

(Note: For those of you who use Twitter, there’s a thing called “re-tweeting” which basically involves taking somebody’s tweet, putting an “RT” in front of it and then publishing it as your own. The effect is you’re reproducing somebody else’s content, but giving them props for writing something interesting. Understanding this practice is key to figuring out what’s going on in the following story.)

So then, it looks as if the founder of Daily Kos and one of its contributors has gone WAY over the line when it comes to tying conservatives to a recent shooting in Pittsburgh.

Tommy Christopher of Political Machine took this screencap of the tweeting and re-tweeting that went on…

Christopher’s reaction…

When I saw his re-Tweet, I was stunned, and I hadn’t even heard about the Pittsburgh shooting yet. I thought he was talking about the shooting in Binghamton. When I looked back at Houle’s Tweet, and I found the story of the three policemen who were killed yesterday, I could not believe my eyes. As you can see, I tried to get Markos to explain his re-Tweet, unable to believe that these two would be joking about this at all, let alone hours after the tragedy. [...]

Maybe there’s something wrong with me, but I think this is shameful. This is the kind of thing I would probably delete at Political Machine. I don’t even see the humor in it, even setting aside the heartless ghoulishness involved.

More broadly, I’m starting to feel like a lot of the liberal blogosphere is forgetting what it means to be a liberal, or maybe I’m using the wrong word. After 8 years of mortal kombat with the right, we’ve swung too far, become too belligerent.

I stopped reading Daily Kos a long time ago because I got sick of the constant, divisive rhetoric that clogged every post, and such is the reason why a blog like ours exists. But taking it to the next level and using the broad brush to say that conservatives are cop killers is beyond the pale. And the Cheney joke was in extremely poor taste.

In other words, dumb knows no party and we’re provided examples of that every single day.

I wrote a post earlier today about this very thing, cautioning top right wing voices from throwing out irresponsible conspiracy theories lest it poison the debate. Does it surprise me that the left has equally irresponsible voices? Of course not. Conflict sells on blogs and nobody knows that better than a guy like Markos. But hopefully people will start growing tired of it and stop reading them altogether.

Seems unlikely, but a guy can hope.

(h/t: Captain Ed)

Three police officers dead because of paranoia.

Here’s more…

A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said.

Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns. [...]

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.”

Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he “wasn’t violently against Obama.”

For now this is an isolated case, but following up on my post from yesterday, the right should try their best to back away from the more feverish, “revolution” rhetoric. Instead, try dealing with Obama’s actual policies, and avoid “reporting” on nightmare scenarios you think may happen.

For instance, take this agit prop from Sean Hannity last year…

Dark music. Slow motion video. Leading questions that have obvious answers.

Scare tactics like these may not seem like a big deal for you or I, but for those who genuinely trust Hannity…what do you think they’d believe after this? And let’s not pretend that guns sales didn’t spike after Obama won last year.

But, to be absolutely clear, this type of behavior doesn’t make the right-wing media responsible for the actions of people who go postal. But since when is it responsible behavior to create a climate of fear when there’s virtually no evidence that what they’re saying will happen?

Looks like Barack Obama’s election is already stimulating the economy.

The firearm economy that is.

That’s right, guns are flying off the shelves all over the nation as gun owners rush to buy a large variety of rifles and handguns out of the fear that Obama and the Democratic controlled congress will pass drastic gun control laws.

I’m pretty sure guns will not be at the top of the agenda once Obama takes office and I’m not too worried about the Democrats unduly infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I don’t think they’ll want to create that kind of wedge issue and will choose to stick to the more mainstream measures of reinstating the assault weapons ban and expanding background checks to include gun shows.

I could be wrong, but I’m betting, even after the Obama administration, there will still be plenty of guns available for purchase.

Despite criticism from several quarters, the Sarah Palin pick is being received very well by core Republicans.

Palin, say conservative activists, has instantly changed how they feel about [John] McCain’s campaign and spurred them to go to work for the Republican ticket.

First, though, they’re expressing their newfound fondness for McCain with their checkbooks. Since tapping Palin, the campaign has raised nearly $7 million online, according to McCain aides.

Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen.

Palin is a staunch pro-lifer and a lifelong NRA member. Which means McCain can packaged his VP selection in two different ways. To the independents he can say: she’s a reformer who’ll bring real change to Washington. To the conservative base he can say: she’s a solid conservative who changes nothing about the Republican party.

Clearly the selection is getting reluctant social conservatives to jump on board. In the next two months we’ll see if Palin can ingratiate herself to moderates as well.

The news release that a Texas School District could be the first in the nation to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection was deemed so preposterous it received a prominent spot on the Nutty News Network.

But the story is legit – the Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District have approved a district policy that allows school employees to carry concealed firearms. And listening to Superintendent David Thweatt, the move is a necessary one to to deter and protect against school shootings.

“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started,” stated Thweatt. “Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ‘sic ‘em’ to a dog.”

Teachers packing heat.

Emboldened by the recent 2nd amendment ruling, the National Rifle Association will spend $40M this fall, $15M of which will be used to paint Obama with the usual gun hating colors.

Anybody want to bet they’ll use Obama’s “bitter” comments against him?

Oh wait…they already have:

“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico.

“We look forward to showing him ‘bitter,’” Cox said.

By the way, here’s Obama’s position on the D.C. law before the ruling…

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And here’s his response after…

“Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country,” he said, adding that “what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,” but the decision reinforced that “if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

My guess is that the NRA is going to try and use those bitter comments against Obama, and he’ll come out with spots that apologize again and talk about how he views gun rights. Who knows what will come of it, but Obama’s team has been very careful to make sure that if an issue has the potential to gain traction, they jump on it extremely quickly. This issue will be no different.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment guarantees gun rights for all or just members of state militias…it’s not even close.

And even among people who don’t own guns, like myself, it’s still not even close…

However, a majority favor more restrictions on guns…
More Restrictions – 49%
Stay The Same – 38%
Fewer Restrictions – 11%

Basically, the 2nd amendment ship has sailed, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t in favor of making sure that guns don’t get into the wrong hands.

The decision was 5-4, and I would have hoped that this wouldn’t be so evenly split because I think most people in this country acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment grants people at least the baseline right to arms themselves. I mean, we’re talking about owning a gun in your home without having to put a trigger lock on it. If that’s not reasonable right, I’m not exactly sure what is.

Here’s the decision…

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Yes, maybe the framers didn’t intend what the SCOTUS upheld today, but the language in the 2nd Amendment is very loose, and I find it extremely hard to believe that they didn’t intend for every single person to at least have this baseline right. Wouldn’t you want everybody to have access to a firearm just in case you would have to form militias quickly?

So, given that this amendment hasn’t been truly scrutinized by the courts since 1791, I’d hope we can settle on it and move on.

Ahh, but nothing is that easy. McCain is already hammering Obama today on a similar law in Chicago…

“For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers,” McCain said in a statement.

He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.

“Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans,” McCain said in the statement.

And you know what…McCain is right. The SCOTUS decision at least puts a bullseye on the Chicago ban, and you can bet that it’ll be up for review very soon.

More as it develops…

No joke.

(CNN) – During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Also, here’s the video.

Now I’m sure Mike really didn’t mean anything by it, but this is the kind of joke he’ll want to stay far, far away from.

Seriously.

UPDATE:
As expected, Huck makes a statement clearing the air…

“During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an offhand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama. I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.”

Again, I’m sure Huck didn’t mean anything by it, but it’s still one heck of a gaffe given the tragic historical context of shootings and African-American leaders. Even the audience’s muted response suggested they understood this. Obviously, it’s good to see him clarify this almost immediately.

Also, let me say for the record that I think Huckabee is one of the more even-handed voices in this primary season and a seemingly well-intentioned guy. And while we disagree on many issues, I completely trust that he’ll be a welcome addition to the conversation about changing the tone of Washington in the years to come.

“She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley.”

That’s Barack Obama discussing Hillary Clinton’s gun rights support in the wake of the Illinois senator’s recent comments on bitterness and voters who cling to such things as guns. Obviously, Obama finds Clinton’s gun support and tales of hunting to be disingenuous.

Clinton’s sudden love affair with hunting deserves some mocking. But it’s telling that Obama is more interested in pointing out his opponents’ insincerities than he is in defending gun rights himself. That’s fine. I appreciate that he’s no lover of guns and that he’s not going to pander on the issue. But at the same time as he’s mocking Clinton, he still wants us to believe he was just talking about “traditions” when he said bitterness over poor economic times makes people cling to guns (among other things).

I really don’t think he can have it both ways. He can’t claim Clinton is being disingenuous on the issue of guns while he wants us to believe he finds guns as part of some worthwhile tradition. Even if Clinton is pandering on the issue, pro-gun Democrats will have a hard time believing that Obama understands them or will look after their interests.

Nice to see the Democratic National Committee is committing politics as usual, distorting the truth for political gain. The DNC wants voters to believe John McCain doesn’t support closing the gun show loophole – even though he literally wrote the legislation on it. From the Baltimore Sun:

During a briefing this afternoon, Democratic pollster Allan Rivlin said that swing voters in 17 states reacted negatively when they learned that McCain no longer supported closing the gun show loophole and opposed any new gun control laws.

In fact, McCain continues to support closing the gun show loophole, which he successfully co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph Lieberman. DNC officials insisted that McCain no longer supports closing the loophole, arguing that he was quoted saying that he does not support new gun control laws following the shootings at Virginia Tech.

“If you tell voters that he doesn’t support closing the gun show loophole, that’s misleading,” said Matt Bennett, who co-founded Americans for Gun Safety and worked closely with McCain and Lieberman to help pass their amendment in the Senate.

McCain also appeared in advertisements in movie theaters around the country about closing the gun show loophole and advocating for gun safety – he urged people to keep their guns locked at home. His position on guns is spelled out on his campaign web site at www.johnmccain.com.
Why is the DNC lying? I think this is part of a general Democratic strategy to paint McCain as a typical “crazy Republican” and hurt his appeal with moderates. But McCain isn’t a typical Republican (crazy or otherwise) and that’s going to make it as difficult for Democrats to run against him as it is for many Republicans to support him. I imagine this won’t be the last time we see the DNC distorting McCain’s positions.

A smart play on his part if he’s hoping to close the gap with Clinton.

From The Politico:

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

It also could provide clues as to whether Obama, as one of the Senate’s more liberal members, can position himself as an acceptable choice to a conservative-minded demographic in later primary contests and in the general election.
…
The campaign has asked gun rights advocates like state Rep. Dan Surra, a Democrat from rural Elk County with an “A+” rating from the NRA, to form a coalition of supporters who can vouch for Obama.

“It is clear out there that I am for Obama, and they have reached out to me as a sportsman and a gun owner,” Surra said Thursday. “There has been an outreach to pro-gun legislators, pro-gun people who are sympathetic to Obama’s message.”

The campaign sent an e-mail this week to the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, saying it would “appreciate all sportsmen taking time to learn the facts: Our candidate strongly supports the right and traditions of sportsmen throughout Pennsylvania and the United States of America.”

And with an endorsement last month from Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Obama got a boost within a community that the Pennsylvania Democrat has courted assiduously. As part of an initiative to move beyond his party’s traditional bases during the 2006 Senate campaign, Casey visited stock car races, demolition derbies and gun clubs. Campaign operatives to both senators are now working closely together.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton does not appear to be making the same level of effort. She has reminded audiences in the last few months that she learned to shoot a gun during childhood vacations in Scranton and bagged a duck as an adult. But neither the state Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs nor her pro-gun Democratic supporters have heard of any specific campaign outreach.

Additionally CNN reports that he’s outspending Clinton 3:1 on PA and that he’s managed to close the gap between them to seven points. Thats important because Obama doesn’t have to win PA to stay in the game. All he has to do is not lose by much. After all if he can go to the convention with a triple digit lead over Clinton he’ll seem to be the stronger candidate.

However The Politico article does shine light onto what could prove to his Achilles heel in the general election.

Obama has long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing, although Obama has voiced support for the right of state and local governments to regulate guns.

Simply put McCain’s voting record on gun rights is better than Obama’s. If Obama stands by his voting record he risks losing pro-gun moderates. If he states that his current position differs from his voting record it’ll appear opportunistic and risk looking like any other politician which will cost him moderates who are truly looking for an “agent of change”. Its a bit of a catch-22 but how well Obama handles the issue may be a prime indicator of what to expect from him as president.

Based on the justice’s demeanors and questions during today’s 2nd Amendment Supreme Court case, early guesses have the court overturning the DC handgun ban. There also looks to be a 5-4 split with the four most liberal justices bowing to the “common defense” interpretation of the amendment which focuses on the “militia” aspect as grounds for constitutionally restricting gun ownership.

The swing-vote is assumed to be Justice Anthony Kennedy and he seemed to be leaning to a more straight-forward interpretation that guarantees citizens the right to bear arms including handguns. A 5-4 split would be unfortunately predictable as it would reinforce the notion that our Constitution is completely malleable and wholly subject to the ideologies of our Supreme Court justices. For this issue, I would like to see some uncommon agreement between the liberals and conservatives on the court.

We’ll most likely have their decision sometime in June.

One of the most important Supreme Court cases in recent years will come before the court tomorrow as the 2nd Amendment is put on trial. This is one of the few shadowy corners of our Constitution, having received very little High Court interpretation. As such, the justices will have to determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment without much precedent to hide behind.

First, the amendment in all its archaic English glory:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But what does that mean? If it’s just a provision forbidding laws limiting individual gun ownership, why the “well regulated militia” line? But if it just has something to do with to the militia, why the whole “right of the people … shall not be infringed” line?

What if, as some have argued (PDF), “well regulated” means “properly operating” in 18th century English and not “tightly controlled by government” as it would likely mean in contemporary writings? Perhaps the “security of a free state” refers to private gun ownership as a check on the standing army. And does the militia refer to all conscript eligible citizens or does it refer to a standing militia/national guard? And does the amendment only apply to the federal government or must states obey it as well?

This is not a simple case and anyone who believes it is straight-forward is probably placing personal politics over judicial interpretation. I tend to think the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant us the right to gun ownership and that the District of Columbia law is unconstitutional. But I’ll be quite interested to see not just how the court rules but how the justices frame their arguments. I’ve read a lot of interpretations of this amendment, it’ll be nice to finally have the great minds of the High Court provide their opinion.