It is a common frustration in the gun rights crowd that the gun banners will post to their heart's content but be unwilling to accept any criticism in the form of blog comments. For the moment, there is an opening.

I point you to two new blogs: http://csgv.blogspot.com/ and http://csgv2.blogspot.com/ that, for the moment, have comment capabilities open. Comments are moderated; let's see what they will accept.

Be polite, but be clear.

Let's see how long comments are allowed and if they stop accepting them. 

Confirmation that "We win even if we loose".

Remember that this case had nothing to do with machine guns, armor piercing ammo, registration or background checks. Arguments on those subjects here do not impact later cases and they may not be mentioned in the final decision.

Also find the first salvo in upcoming lawsuits. The Brady Campaign will be there and they will be paying for it with their "Heller fund raisers". 

It looks like they won't have to go far. It looks like New York is Next up, the Sullivan Act. There should be a bumper crop of plaintiffs there.

h/t to Gun Legislation & Politics in New York.

Here is my one and only prediction: 

No matter what the outcome from the Supreme Court, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center will declare victory. Then they will initiate fund raising based upon their "victory".

There you have it.  I'll just call that a slam dunk.

Today is a banner day, Heller v. D.C. and all.  But I am running silent. Why? Because half the known world is blogging it.

If I don't have anything to add, I don't blog.

Everyone that reads, reads alot.  If SayUncle covers it, there is no reason for me too. The same goes for a number of other blogs. I just don't feel like reinventing the wheel.

And that is why it may see the biggest subjects get the least coverage from me. 

Just in case you were wondering. 

Now, head over to ScotusBlog or CSPAN. CSPAN is also on XM 132.

According the Washington Post via a Violence Policy Center press release , "59 percent of the American public supports restrictions identical to Washington, DC's gun laws".

On the same day, US News & World Report finds "more than two thirds oppose an outright ban on handguns."

I guess it all depends on your sample.

My highly scientific study of one individual believes that the VPC and their followers should find a place where guns are already banned and go feel safer there, like Mexico. 

After the Democratic loses of 2000 and 2004, the party of Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer concluded that a vocal advocacy of gun control was a losing proposition. Party leadership was getting the idea as early as 2003.

Go and check out Winning the Gun Vote. In the attached presentation, it is clear the Democratic leadership believed that the vocal advocacy of gun rights was the only way to counter a nationwide perception that Democrats were against our Second Amendment rights. The data is getting old and some of it seems way off base. For instance, page 24 says that 67% of gun owners believe a Democrat could support a federal gun owner license and still be a strong Second Amendment supporter. But the foundation was clear. Democrats should present themselves as supporters of gun rights tempered by a message of gun safety.

The Democratic party needed to move gun rights from a Republican controlled issue to a nonpartisan issue. The creation of the American Hunters and Shooters Association is probably the zenith of this Democratic makeover thus far.

So here we are on 2008. A number of progun bills sit in the House and the Senate. Harry Reid, a Democrat endorsed by the NRA, is the top dog in House leadership. Among those bills is House Bill 5434. H.R.5343 prevents the Secretary of the Interior from impacting our gun rights within National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. It is a small, measured and reasonable piece of bureaucrat control.

So, how does our man Harry support those who supported him? According to the Las Vegas Sun,  Reid would rather avoid issue of guns in U.S. parks because "A GOP senator’s proposal could embarrass Dems in election year". He is more interested in protecting gun grabbers like Obama and Clinton from a roll call vote than stand up for constitutional rights.

Now, Mr. Reid has said that H.R.5434 is completely unnecessary as the Department of the Interior is resolving the issue itself administratively. In doing so he failed to acknowledge that Rep. Norm Dicks says he’ll block changes to lift gun ban in national parks. As chairman of the House Appropriations interior subcommittee, Dicks has budgetary control. His threat is not idle. Reid's attempt to assuage our disappointment is deceit based upon partial information.

And that is why gun rights is a partisan issue. As long as the Dems continue to support their gun grabbing party members over our rights, we can't believe their word.

The hands you feel on your back belong to Harry Reid pushing you under a bus.