From the UK Daily Mail about Phil Jones of University of East Anglia:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

And now, some IPCC scientists are finally agreeing that the surface stations aren't reliable due to significant issues with how and where the stations are cited and how urban heat island effects have grown up around them.

It's good to see some actual science occurring which here is invalidation of incorrect conclusions based on further testing and study. All that said, can we build a bunch more nuclear power plants and slow down admitting C02, and much worse things like radioactivity from coal?

Alan's reply brief and NRA's reply brief are available from Chicagoguncase.com. The Chicago Tribune also ran a profile on Otis McDonald this weeked.

Like Josh Blackman, I find it odd that NRA, who worried that Alan wasn't making a vigorous due process argument, then didn't include the modern due process cases like Nordyke...

I'm proud to have been part of the Secret Cadre on this in a couple of small ways. I'm hopeful that we can put a final end to the last battle of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Hat tip to GigaOM as well.

Really?

Here is my disclosure from here on out. Mr. James Madison made sure that I received a free copy of The United States Constitution which includes a gratis (but hard won) copy of the Bill of Rights. In it, I find that my opinion of products or services, as well as my absolute right to speak either anonymously or even with ill or deceitful intent (but probably not fraud if someone is paying me to create commercial speech directly) was explained where it says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

As a matter of principle, every reader of this blog or any social media updates of mine should know that my ongoing disclosure is that I refuse to disclose. I will back up that refusal with a good old fashioned Bivens case if pressed.

I don't support illegal activities, but there is a very odd moral equivalence going on. Scientists can lie in public in an attempt to alter global politics and economics and break laws to avoid legally required disclosure of much if not all of these documents, and we should feel sorry for them that their privacy was violated? If they didn't wish to be public figures this way they could easily:

a) not disseminate false and misleading information in an attempt to beggar economic growth as the new malthusians, or

b) practice the simple policy that most scientists do of making their underlying data and methods available to others publicly for debate and analysis.

Transparency does suck when you have something to hide...

What might this have to do with toddlers? Our youngest has started to enjoy Sponge Bob. During the commercials I just heard Mattel using "Barbie Girl" to advertise... Barbie. Aqua and Universal are getting paid by Mattel...

Truth is stranger than fiction.

What I find eyebrow raising is this line:

Any Supreme Court ruling should explicitly recognize the authority of state and local governments to craft regulations to best protect their communities. Gun laws that make sense in a densely populated urban area may be unreasonable or unnecessary to protect the public safety of rural residents.

Would the Post agree that state or local restrictions on the publishing of newspapers may make sense in urban areas while not making sense in rural areas? How about state restrictions on which religion you can practice? Maybe the right to be free from unreasonable searches doesn't apply in D.C.? (D.C. actually tried that one.)

One of these days, even staunch First Amendment advocates will realize that their fear of firearms leads them to support the undermining of all civil liberties. It's not unlike the right's fear of sexual autonomy makes them attempt to undermine the Fourteenth Amendment - something we all need revitalized to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm going to insert my tongue firmly in cheek and explain. Clearly the proliferation of dangerous weapons on the streets of cities like D.C. has lead to horrendous decreases in crime. The expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons ban five years ago has lead to nothing but widespread decreases in crimes of violence! Assault Weapons have no place but to be in our streets protecting the law abiding as is evidence by the massive decreases in injuries to children in our cities! Also, the reintroduction of handguns into the District of Columbia has done nothing but make the District a safer place where blood doesn't run in the gutters!

I know... but darn it is satisfying to use those who would undermine the bill of rights words' against them.

One of the things I loved about Adams is that it captures the spirit of serious risk to those who signed the document. The final sentence of the Declaration has always resonated for me:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

We should never let these sacrifices be in vain.

I have a quite different take. First of all, there has been a sea change for the better after Prop 8. Governor's vetos have been overridden and in general gay marriage is on the march in the States. The California Supreme Court got the Prop 8 decision right on the law while being fully cognizant that that ruling's result was unjust. That's where this case kicks in. As David Boies put it, reasonable people can disagree about the timing of the case, but I think this is on even better ground than the case that became DC v. Heller was at the time of its filing.

The fundamental question is whether Justice Kennedy will extend Loving v. Virginia to sexual orientation. I believe he will. Either way, I expect the plaintiffs to prevail most of the way through the 9th Circuit. One strategic outcome may be that neither side appeals for Cert. Very interestingly, Nordyke and McDonald/NRA may pave the way for a Privileges and Immunities challenge as well.

I'm stealing the line, but I've always been for married gays with guns in their closets.

As I posted recently, Nordyke v King found that the Second Amendment applied to the states on April 20, 2009. 10 days later the Calguns Foundation and its coalition filed a lawsuit entitled Pena et al v. Cid alleging that the Roster of Handguns Certified For Sale in California was unconstitutional (a companion case to Hanson v. District of Columbia). 6 days after that, the same coalition filed a lawsuit entitled Sykes et. al. v. McGinness et. al. alleging that the discretionary issuance of licenses to carry operable firearms was unconstitutional as well. Then on May 15, an NRA lead coalition filed Jackson et al. v. San Francisco which challenges San Francisco's "safe storage" requirements and the City's ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition.

On May 18th in a surprising and rare turn of events, an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing on and a vote on whether Nordyke should go en banc. The Nordykes are pulling their briefing together. Clearly the court's treatment of "sensitive places" was incorrect. Odds are only mildly against the case actually going en banc based on the head count of announced opinions of the current makeup of the court. However, there is a slight increased chance of en banc due to the poor reasoning on the merits of the gun show ban, and not on the incorporation analysis. Suffice it to say that it leaves the pending cases in an interesting tactical position. To add excitement, Alan Gura and Stephen Halbrook are arguing incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago in their consolidated cases on the day after Memorial Day.

However, I look forward to being able to tell the veterans I interact with that, yes, they can actually own the semiautomatic version of the firearm the government otherwise issues them and that we in California have the Fourteenth Amendment to thank for that. It's a relatively modern "innovation" that a veteran can't put his rifle in his own closet...

I thank all of them for their service and hope that I can also do a small part to defend what they fight for.

The sad news was that on procedural grounds, the Nordyke Gun Show lost. The basic rationale was that government is not required to support the exercise of a right which is distinct from actually prohibiting the exercise of the right. Self defense or the right to bear arms were not a part of this case so it is not completely surprising that this sort of restriction might be inside the possible - like a government not supporting abortions in publicly owned facilities.

However, since it is a "loss," the pro-civil rights side is in control of the appeals process which really opens the California (and entire West Coast) courts to challenging things that clearly violate the Second Amendment.

Congratulations to Don Kilmer and Don Kates who are pictured above. Note that the opinion is dated on the first business day after the anniversary of "The Shot Heard 'Round the World."

Friedman reminds us all that capitalism may be bad but everything else is much worse.