Several days ago David Codrea published the information about the Bush admin's apparent approval of the "collective rights" argument regarding the Second Amendment.

He was attacked with personal smears that had nothing to do with the original argument on a forum called CalGuns.  When he attempted to respond, his response was deleted by a "moderator," who also allowed the original attack against Codrea to stand undeleted.

Read the whole thing by clicking the link above, or jump straight to this comment that sums up the whole thing quite nicely and puts the calguns quislings in their place.

And yes, I chose the word "quislings" quite intentionally.

The Constitution has no place in legal proceedings, according to U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson:

A man charged with possessing illegal machine guns shouldn't be able to make constitutional arguments at trial, according to a motion filed Friday by federal prosecutors.

Constitution? What Constitution? The law is what we say it is, and to hell with all you unwashed subjects.

The government is arguing that it is the court's role to decide matters of law and to instruct the jury. The jury's role is to then determine and apply the facts to the law as instructed by the court. The jury has no role in deciding legal issues, according to the motion.

In other words, it is the jury's duty to pass any summary judgement that they are instructed to by the ruling elite who know better than they (we) do.

In fact, and all sarcasm aside, there is a little thing called jury nullification.  It's something that the enemies of freedom don't want many people to know about, because if too many people really knew the power they wielded as a jurist, it would mean a lot of shysters would be out of their jobs.  It would also mean a lot of stupid laws would be in effect nullified because no one would try to prosecute them.

Via The War On Guns.  More here and here.

From Dave Kopel, The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

--St. George Tucker

UPDATE:  Great minds think alike!

At The War on Guns:

When John Ashcroft penned his "individual rights" opinion, it made headlines around the world. Terms like "sea change" were thrown about, and we were told how significant the opinion was for gun rights. The Bradys went nuts. 18 state attorneys general followed suit and drafted their own letter of concurrence. And this was used to tremendous advantage to convince gun owners to throw their support behind the Bush administration.

But now we have it from one of the top attorneys in that administration that the "collective rights" language "was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President."

This is big stuff, although many won't realize it and many more may not admit it.

You see, it is recognized by almost everyone that when the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it actually means the people, that is, those individuals who make up the citizenry of this country.  They are individual rights.

However, those who would prefer us all to be obedient little subjects always try to say that the phrase "the people" in Amendment #2 doesn't actually mean the people, it means the various governmental bodies (state, federal) who would subjugate us.  Therefore, this is a "collective" right.  Which is, of course, not a right at all.*

Follow the link above and read the whole post.  Then follow the links at the bottom for more comments on the matter.

*My attempt at explaining this for the non-gunnie-types who read this blog, and who may not be aware of the individual-versus-collective definitions.

The NRA comes up with a good idea.  It's so obvious, I don't know why I didn't think of it.  Although to be fair to myself, I didn't realize the ATF had an "illegal gun hotline."  Sounds like a handy way to anonymously create harassment of some neighbor who's been irritating you.

Anyway, from the NRA blog:

Well, I think it's time we help out the ATF agents that enforce our nation's gun laws. We need to call their Illegal Gun Hotline at 1-800-ATF-GUNS (that's 1-800-283-4867) and alert them to this illegal firearms activity. Tell them that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hiring private investigators to initiate straw purchases in several states, and you want them to enforce the law.

Just make sure you call from a pay phone.

Someone visited here after searching "is the Taurus 44 ten legal in California."

I think the correct model name is 4410.

And I think the correct answer is no, but someone who actually lives in California might know for sure.

I think that handguns which can shoot shotgun cartridges are illegal there.

Yes, it's a stupid law.  No, it doesn't make sense.  And no, such a law would not exist if the Constitution actually mattered in this country.

From Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

Recently a JPFO supporter sent a letter to the NRA asking about its position on the BATFE. As our readers know, JPFO has made it a mission to abolish that rogue agency and end federal control and regulation of your firearms.

In their response to our supporter, the NRA spokesperson, on behalf of Sandra Froman, president of the NRA, made several statements that are contrary to what JPFO believes gun rights organizations should support.

The complete response from the NRA and JPFO's response to the response can be read here (pdf file).

UPDATE:  I think the "preaching to the choir" comment could have been misconstrued after I read this post at The War On Guns.  The comment being left anonymously was an accident.  I left it myself in reply to the first comment.  Sometimes, for reasons unknown to me, I don't get automatically logged in when I reply to a comment on my own blog, and when this happens, I usually don't notice it.  My clichéd response was unfortunate.  I should have spoken in plain language.  If I had, I would have simply said, "I agree with you already, so you don't have to use your caps lock."

I usually delete these comments that I accidentally post anonymously and repost them under my own name.  This time, since it has already been referenced, I'll leave it as is and I hope this update will suffice to explain things.

As I said in a comment I left at the WOG post linked above, I agree with the JPFO position that the BATF should be eliminated.  Any legitimate and constitutional functions which they perform should be relegated to a new agency or agencies.  Following that, a lot of people involved with their oppressive measures should be prosecuted by all legal and constitutional means.

I apologize if there were any misunderstandings caused by my lack of attention.