Courtesy of TRS, who has the audio: So let me suggest this to you with respect to the power of the courts, in particularly the Supreme Court. Where there is not a clear constitutional issue as there clearly was in Loving vs Virginia under the 14th amendment, a clear violation of the 14th amendment, then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene? The Equal Protection

The Hill: The Obama administration is moving to shore up the federal criminal background check system as part of the president’s effort to curb gun violence — with or without help from Congress. — first, let’s stop right there and parse the way this is phrased by the Hill’s Ben Goad.  Congress is not intended to “help” the President move his agenda, but rather to act as a potential check

Lookit:  no one has been any harder on Mayor Bloomberg and his campaign to use his own enormous bank account — and even more enormous ego — to, with the help of anti-gun non-profits and a post-constitutional White House, attempt a kind of governmental coup, whereby a rich Mayor from a cosmopolitan city presumes to circumvent representative government and state sovereignty by buying out-of-state lawmakers to do the bidding not

Well, on gun ownership they are — a terrible idea, in fact — mostly because they represent an onerous imposition on moving legal private property between friends and family members, and because, pace what their cynical proponents claim to be hoping they do, they are a rather transparent step in a process that the left (and many statists in the GOP) hopes will yield a national gun registry, the forerunner