It’s been a week, and there was only two mentions of McDonald on National Review online. And that was in the Court Watcher blog section, and one done by a guest blogger connected with the Heller case (Clark Neily).
I can understand Metrocons being a little reticent about gun issues. They are city boys and girls. But the McDonald case had far reaching implications that go beyond guns and right into Conservative Constitutional questions. I figured that would at least spark SOME interest in the main section. Still, half a loaf… National Review is friendly enough to the firearms rights, if they may ignore it a bit too much, at times, and I'd certainly never expect them to turn into "ALL 2nd Amendment ALL the time!" rah rah folks.
I can understand Metrocons being a little reticent about gun issues. They are city boys and girls. But the McDonald case had far reaching implications that go beyond guns and right into Conservative Constitutional questions. I figured that would at least spark SOME interest in the main section. Still, half a loaf… National Review is friendly enough to the firearms rights, if they may ignore it a bit too much, at times, and I'd certainly never expect them to turn into "ALL 2nd Amendment ALL the time!" rah rah folks.
7 comments:
Does Metrocon = Metropolitan Conservative? I Googled it and only came up with page after page of "Florida Anime Convention".
correct, UGLTY.
http://jovianthunderbolt.blogspot.com/search?q=metrocon
geography. hmm...
Suburbi-con
Rural-con
Fisher-con
Farm-con
Mountain-con
Americ-con
Please give a lazy gun owner a synopsis of the McDonald case.
For Lazy Gun Owner.
Heller case 2 years ago means you have an individual right to a firearm, it's got nothing to do with militia membership. That applies to DC, a Federal enclave.
Question? Does that mean the States have to recognize your right? McDonald is the case before the court now that will answer that. Arguing under the protection of the 14th Amendment. But will it be the Due Process clause? Or the more sweeping and important for Freedom and Liberty Privileges or Immunities clause?
Time will tell!
June ruling expected.
The Donald case is only a small (important but small) slice of many 2nd amendment battles and victories occurring simultaneously.
Just yesterday New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson signed SB40 into law allowing licensed CCW holders to carry concealed into restaurants that serve beer or wine. What a shame the NRA-ILA chose to mention this only after the fact (instead of reaching out to ask for support from our constituency).
It's important to remember that while we should give attention to, and care deeply, about things like the Donald and Heller cases we also need to continue to fight for our rights everywhere.
As a liberal I find it ridiculous that so many conservatives assume:
A) All liberals are all anti-gun
B) All conservative states are "gun friendly"
For example, the gun laws in Texas are draconian compared to their more liberal neighbor to the west. The majority of New Mexico's significant pro gun rights laws were initiated or championed by Democrats. Conservatives would be well served to focus more attention on their "stronghold" states and push for further progress of their second amendment rights.
If conservatives are really as "pro gun" as you like to pretend you are you've got a lot of work to do. Every "red state" with overly restrictive gun laws related to open carry (on person or in vehicle), CCW, or registration should be an embarrassment to the entire party. Just as Brady and Pelosi are embarrassments to pro-gun liberals.
In other words, it's time for all pro-gun people to shit or get off the pot. We should be working to pass laws enabling gun rights with as much effort as we spend fighting the laws that threaten to diminish them.
Side note - Sorry NJT, I know you're pretty much screwed in all this living in DC. :p
Post a Comment