If you'll try and think back to last year, the right to bear arms claimed a major victory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms, not just the right of a state militia. Careful. That Supreme Court ruling applied to a district that was under federal control; the District of Columbia. Now we're talking about states and cities, and another gun control case has made the docket. This time around, the Supreme Court is going to decide whether state and local gun control laws can be challenged under the Second Amendment.

I believe that the Supremes will do anything they can to rule that the Second Amendment was the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that granted power to the government instead of the people. In other words, the pudding is getting deeper.

You will remember that we've talked in recent days about these people who showed up at an ObamaCare rally in Arizona. About six protestors were legally wearing guns on their hips. One was carrying a semi-automatic rifle. I've said that I thought that this was a bit over the top ... not a good idea ... but let's focus on what MSNBC's Contessa Brewer had to say:

"A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.

The reason we're talking about this--a lot of talk here Dylan--because people feel like yes, there are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. You have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

OK .. let's ferret out the "facts" contained in Contessa's news story.

• We had a rally for ObamaCare
• A man at that rally was carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle
• The man carrying the rifle was white.

Well ... listen to the show today. Perhaps some interesting news, and evidence of a coverup?

Gun control: this guy clearly does not have it.

Gun Recoil Knockout - Watch more Funny Videos

There is an amendment coming to the House floor that is dividing some Democrats. It has to do with gun control. I believe the amendment is sponsored by John Thune and it is to be included on the Defense authorization bill. The amendment would allow licensed gun owners to transport their concealed weapons across state lines.

Listen to some of these Democrats. Here is some of the reasoning as to why they oppose it.

Rep. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, asks, "Why would we want to walk the streets wondering, 'Who has a gun in their pockets?'" Yes, folks. This is really why Robert Menendez opposes this amendment .. because he is worried that people will walk the streets and wonder who has a gun. Tell you what .. in certain parts of Atlanta you just ASSUME that the other person is carrying a gun ... most illegally.

Diane Feinstein of California says that the amendment is "reckless," "irresponsible" and ... get this .. "a major violation of state rights." Wow, did we just have a Democrat express concern for states' rights? But .. you know what? Feinstein has a point. There is an argument that states should be able to enforce their own carry permit laws. Perhaps the Republicans ought to just focus on carry rights while transiting a state.

Here's the set up. The city of Chicago has banned handguns and automatic weapons since 1982. The NRA believes this to be an infringement upon your right to bear arms. Now, you'll remember last summer the Supreme Court decided on a case "District of Columbia v. Heller," which recognized an individual right to bear arms. The day after the Supreme Court came to this decision, the NRA challenged the Chicago gun ban.

Well the reason I bring this up now is because a three-judge panel has finally ruled on the challenge - it rejected the NRA's challenge to the ban. Its explanation was that the

"District of Columbia v. Heller" case recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that it doesn't apply to states and municipalities. In other words, the Heller case dealt with a law passed by the federal government, where as this Chicago gun ban is a local matter ... and according to this panel of judges, the Second Amendment does extend to laws passed by state or local authorities, only the federal government.

So now the NRA wants the Supreme Court to take up the case. Better hurry. You can rest assured that if Obama gets to replace a conservative justice it won't be with someone who feels friendly towards the Second Amendment.

Why does the left feel so strongly about disarming Americans? Could that be because when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns?

President Obama is in Mexico right now. He is there to tell the Mexican government that he is willing to do anything he can to help in their battle against drugs and violence. And that includes ..... slowing down the dangerous flow of weapons from the United States.

The question now remains: how is he planning to do that?

Well we know one thing is for sure (or do we?) He is not going to reinstate an assault weapons ban (or will he?). (Although, he did make that promise when he was running for president and he still maintains that the ban makes sense.) Eric Holder recently brought up the idea of instating the ban and both parties said no to the idea.

Instead, Obama said that he wants to focus on enforcing existing laws that make it illegal to send assault weapons across the border.

These weapons pose a danger in Mexico. Fine. I get it. Now ... take a look at the statistics for crime brought to us by the wonderful Mexican invasion of the US. Specifically, look at assaults and deaths from drunk driving. I would be interested in knowing where the higher death toll is: Deaths from drunk illegal drivers in the U.S.; or deaths from assault weapons in Mexico.

Here's a general rule of thumb with the politicians in charge of Washington today: most believe that the Constitution is a document that prevents them from doing what they think government ought to do. And when it comes to our Second Amendment, Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder aren't going to let that silly little document get in the way of cracking down on gun trafficking to Mexico.

You may remember the other day; our Attorney General Eric Holder was asked if the administration would encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on gun trafficking. His response was: "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

Stand in our way? Since when has our Constitution or our Bill of Rights been something that is considered an obstacle or a barrier? Our Bill of Rights outlines the freedoms we hold that the government cannot infringe upon. That includes the right to bear arms. But to a Democrat like Eric Holder, this is a limitation of the boundless powers provided by government.

And Nancy Pelosi is right there by Eric Holder's side, saying that gun registration is at the top of her agenda. If you don't believe that registration precedes seizure, then you just aren't paying attention.

A state representative in from Chicago is in hot water for suggesting the idea that children should be educated about guns. She says, "Down state they teach you that guns are meant for hunting, for protection..here in the urban cities, all they see are guns on tv..and they gun down people." What's amusing is that the idea of gun education is included in a bill that would ban private handgun sales.

And you'll love this reaction from Father Moonbat Pflager of St. Sabina Church. He says, "That's like saying we might as well sell drugs legally..we don't want access to guns. We have children dying in this city. We're talking about teaching gets kids in grammar school how to shoot guns? That's crazy."

The Washington Times is reporting that the Obama administration is quietly ending the federal firearms program that allows pilots to carry guns if they've completed a federal-safety program.

This past week, the administration apparently diverted $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots. Since Barack Obama was elected, the approval process for pilots to carry guns on planes "slowed significantly." And with this move last week, the process has completely stalled.

The question is, why? As of right now, 12,000 pilots have been approved to carry guns. There are zero cases in which those pilots have improperly brandished or used those guns. Doesn't matter to PrezBO though. The Democrats are in charge, and Democrats don't like for the people they wish to control to be armed. All that simple.

Right now in Washington, another issue that is up for debate is whether or not DC should be represented in the House of Representatives. But what interests me more is the fact that lawmakers have slipped into the bill what they are calling the "gun amendment." Basically it would remove the city's gun-registration requirements, limit its authority to restrict firearms and repeal the ban on semiautomatic guns.

The bill has passed the Senate. Not without a fight, though. Dianna Feinstein complained that this gun amendment would "lead to more violence." Republican John Ensign .. who sponsored the amendment .. says that it will "remove the tremendous barriers and burdens on law-abiding citizens" who were seeking to "protect themselves in their own homes."

I don't expect the Democrats to understand the concept of self-defense. That, after all, is the government's job.

Illinois is trying its best to strip guns out of the hands of citizens. While lawmakers know that they can't overtly do this .. because of this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment .. they know that enough government regulation will eventually destroy an industry.

So Illinois is considering a law to require gun owners to maintain a policy of liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 ... this is HB0687, the Firearm Owners ID-Insurance bill:

"Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010."

When your goal is absolute control over the population controlling the population's access to weapons is crucial. These politicians know that guns legally owned by law-abiding citizens are not the problem. Remember that government has one power that the rest of us do not have .. government, and only government, can use force to accomplish its goals. We should always be very wary of any politician who exhibits fear at the thought of private citizens having the ability to defend themselves.

Things are getting heated in Memphis, Tennessee where a newspaper decided it would be a good idea to publish all the names and information of gun owners in the state. The Commercial Appeal's Web site now lists all those in Tennessee who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The outcry from the public has been so huge, that the paper felt the need to defend its decision. I thought that you might enjoy a few of the reasons why the paper supports the need to know who in your neighborhood is a handgun owner:

• A mom might now check the list to see if the parents at her kid's sleep-over next door had a concealed weapon permit. If so, maybe it would be worth talking to them to make sure the gun is locked up.
  
• A school official, concerned about whether teachers were bringing guns onto school grounds, might check the list to see whether anyone on the staff has a permit to carry, and then have a discussion about it.
  
• Business people who sell goods and services that might be of interest to those who carry concealed weapons might use the list to generate new leads.
  
• But there is one overriding, enduring reason the permit-to-carry list needs to be public. Once a concealed weapon is pulled out at a shopping center, a hospital or a business, what happens next with that gun becomes a matter of public concern to everyone.

Hey ... I have an idea here. Why doesn't this same newspaper publish a list of all people who have communicable diseases? How about a list of people with HIV? Maybe some mother would be a little concerned about her child spending the night at a friend's home where mom and dad have full-blown AIDS. Maybe a school official might like to know which teachers are HIV positive, and which are not.

We know the reason, don't we? The newspaper is philosophically opposed to people owning and carrying guns ... and this is a way for them to fight back.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True, the bill doesn't mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology - tasked with, among other things, "providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." ...

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -- including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.

Remember last year's "NICS Improvement Act" otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF's attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist's finding that you are a "danger" -- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer's... or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.

In Compton, California they had their little annual gun buy-back program this past weekend.  They paid a hundred buck each for a variety of guns turned in by the local citizenry.  What nonsense.  Are we expected to believe that a criminal is going to turn in his only gun for a hundred bucks?  BS.  He's going to USE his gun to get that hundred bucks. 

Has anyone ever done a scientific study to see just how effective these guy buy-back programs are?  Oh, wait.  That's right.  I have!  Several years ago I had a statistician at Georgia Tech study the situation to come up with a number of guns that had to be bought-back to reach a statistical certainty of having saved one life.  The answer?  About 65,000 guns.  Now in this weekend's Compton effort they collected what was described as "several hundred."  It seems to me that the several thousand dollars spent buying back several hundred guns from people who would never use them in a crime might have been better spent --- perhaps on bullets for the bad guys. 

That question comes from an elected official in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That person would be Tonya Payne, a Democrat member of the Pittsburgh City Council. Apparently there has been brouhaha in Pittsburgh concerning the right to bear arms. It would be a little thing called the Second Amendment ... not that this woman has heard of it. I wonder what she would score on that little civics quiz we talked about yesterday?

Anyway, Tonya and her fellow council members approved legislation that would require anyone to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours. If not reported, the person would face a fine. You see, right now in Pennsylvania there is a state ban on local laws on "the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession" of guns. The question is whether that extends to reporting lost or stolen firearms.

So that's when Tonya, who can't seem to wrap her bureaucratic head around the concept, comes up with this line: "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?"

She goes on to say, "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable."

So according to Tonya, it is okay to defy the Constitution if your city councilwoman thinks that "it is the right thing to do." Is this the type of respect for the Constitutional law that we can expect from a Barack Obama administration? Remember, under an Obama administration with Obama appointed judges ... the Constitution is just a formality, what really matters is making sure that judges rule the way they feel is "right."

Remember a few days ago I gave you the link so that you could apply for a position in the Obama administration? You would have to fill out some 63 questions about some very personal issues. One of which the Obama camp chose to include was about gun ownership. Under the headline of "Miscellaneous," the question reads: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

A question like this did not exist for the Bush administration. But many people, including the NRA, are upset by this question. Apparently one Republican Senator has already considered legislation that would make it illegal for a president to use an applicant's gun ownership status to deny anyone of employment.

Yeah, that's not going to get far with 60 Democrats in the Senate.