While some of our friends on the other side of the gun violence prevention issue can be forgiven some, er, irrational exuberance over yesterday’s election results, the reality is a little more mundane.

For better or worse, guns didn’t play a prominent role in the outcomes of any of the four high-profile races yesterday — Virginia Governor, New York-23, New Jersey Governor, and New York City Mayor.  By almost all accounts, the bad economy and high unemployment were the key ballot-box issues.

Further, all these races played out on the home turf of either side of the gun violence prevention debate.  NRA-endorsed Bob McDonnell won the governor’s election in the NRA’s home state of Virginia.  Meanwhile, NRA-endorsed Dede Scozzafava couldn’t even make it to Election Day in the conservative NY-23rd Congressional district — which a Democrat won for the first time since the Civil War era.

On the other hand, Brady Campaign-endorsed Michael Bloomberg won a historic third term as New York City mayor, while Brady-endorsed Jon Corzine lost his bid for re-election as New Jersey governor to gun control supporter Chris Christie.

In short, NRA and Brady each went 1-1 in yesterday’s big races.

While the NRA will surely trumpet its candidate’s win in Virginia, observers will remember how NRA’s TV ads told McDonnell supporters to vote on the wrong day, while in another TV advertisement they “reinforced defaming stereotypes” of Italian-Americans.

And, finally, for all their storied “power,” the special Congressional election in New York state showed NRA leaders unable to even keep their candidate in the race — much less push her to victory.

For all the drama, yesterday’s elections — while saying a lot about the state of the economy today — said little about the state of the gun violence prevention issue in America.

We know that individuals can defy the law. Can a state legislature defy the law? When it comes to the gun issue, apparently it can.

I refer to the extraordinary legislation passed into law by the states of Montana and Tennessee declaring that guns or ammunition manufactured and retained entirely within the borders of those states are “not subject to federal law.” Apparently, similar legislation has been introduced in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Colorado.

Can a state unilaterally exempt its homemade products from the reach of federal law? Only if it is prepared to defy the United States Constitution.

Under the Constitution, Congress has certain enumerated powers, including the power “to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states.” In its 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle, first set out in the Depression-era case of Wickard v. Filburn, that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate purely intrastate activity involving a product, if it rationally concludes that to leave such activity unregulated would undercut its regulation of interstate commerce in the product. In Gonzales, the Supreme Court upheld Congressional power to ban the possession and use of marijuana, even by a California resident who cultivated her own marijuana and used it for personal medical purposes within the state entirely in accord with state law.

There is no doubt that, under these Supreme Court rulings, Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and sale of guns that never cross the borders of Montana or Tennessee. Although some may disagree with this reading of the Commerce Clause, the more fundamental point is that, under our Constitution, the scope of federal Commerce Clause power is not for individual states to decide. In addition to misunderstanding the Commerce Clause, legislators in Montana and Tennessee seem prepared to defy the Supremacy Clause, under which federal enactments “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . .” As the High Court made clear in Gonzales, “the Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail,” meaning that “state action cannot circumscribe Congress’ plenary commerce power.” The Gonzales Court expressly rejected Justice Thomas’ radical suggestion in dissent that “States possess the power to dictate the extent of Congress’ commerce power . . . .” Isn’t that exactly what Montana and Tennessee think they have done?

The idea that states can unilaterally “opt out” of federal law is not new. Its ancestors range from the 18th century Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, who thought only the states should have the power to regulate commerce, to John C. Calhoun’s nullification doctrine that led to the Civil War, to Governor George Wallace standing in the doorway defying the Attorney General of the United States, who was enforcing a federal order requiring the enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama. In short, on the issue of gun control, Montana and Tennessee have cast their lot with the historic “losers” in the great constitutional debate over state vs. federal power.

The enforceability of federal gun laws against purely intrastate conduct in Montana and Tennessee seems destined for the federal courts. The question arises: If these states believe they have the authority to exempt gun manufacturing and sales from federal law, do they also claim the authority to defy federal court rulings – even by the Supreme Court – to the contrary? Is secession next?

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

No one in the gun violence prevention movement has any illusions about the ultimate winner of the special Congressional election in the conservative NY-23 district somehow becoming a champion for our cause.

Yet as we now know, Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava — the NRA’s endorsed candidate — has dropped out of that race.

The most recent Siena poll put her in a distant third.

Many observers, however, raised expectations for the NRA endorsement in this right-wing bloodbath.

Stu Rothenberg said that notwithstanding her moderate stances on some issues:

[Scozzafava] received the endorsement from the National Rifle Association, and it could be important in fashioning her appeal to right-wing voters in the district.

Newt Gingrich said:

I endorsed the Republican who has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association….

Even the UK’s Telegraph, covering the high-profile race, reported:

She has the backing of the powerful National Rifle Association….

Yet without a vote being cast, the “powerful” National Rifle Association has already failed to elect an endorsed candidate for office in this election cycle — in a conservative district where one would think their endorsement means the most.

Dobbs blames immigration activists.

Police remind folks that the shot apparently “did not come close to” Dobbs wife, that it was hunting season at the time, and that they wouldn’t “classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual” since hunter complaints go up during that time of year.

We report, you decide.

First, Dobbs’ take via FOX News:

A gunshot was fired at the New Jersey home of CNN’s Lou Dobbs after a series of threatening phone calls earlier this month, the host told listeners on his nationally syndicated radio show.

Dobbs, a fervent proponent of U.S. border enforcement, told listeners of “The Lou Dobbs Show” on Monday that the incident is part of an ongoing assault against anyone who opposes amnesty or leniency toward illegal immigrants.

“They’ve created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda,” Dobbs said in reference to pro-immigration groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza and America’s Voice. “Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”….

[more]

Now, the New Jersey State Police, via Huffington Post:

…Interviews with the New Jersey State Police yielded a rather different assessment of the events described by Dobbs. In a phone interview conducted yesterday, Sgt. Stephen Jones, a NJ State Police spokesperson, chuckled out loud after he heard about Dobbs’ account of the gunfire incident. Jones commented that he “wouldn’t classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual.” He also confirmed that there are hunters in the area, and stated that, “at this time of year hunter [shooting] complaints go up.”…

…Another New Jersey State Police spokesperson, Sgt. Julian Castellanos, noted that “it’s a wide open area and there are hunters in the area.” Castellanos explained that the bullet had hit the house in vicinity of the attic; it “hit the vinyl siding and fell to the ground” without penetrating the vinyl, he said.

While Lou Dobbs’ wife, Debi Lee Segura, was standing outside the house at the time of the gunfire, the bullet did not come close to her; it “struck at the apex of the house, near the roof,” and thus considerably higher than a standing person, Jones observed….

[more]

By the way, The Dobbs family lives in New Jersey, a state with some of the strongest gun laws in America, with the nation’s sixth lowest gun death rate.

Across the border in Pennsylvania, the gun death rate is twice as high.

OK, maybe not.

But remember, it isn’t “paranoia” if they’re really after you.

…The real agenda of these folks at the UN, and in London, Tokyo, Brasilia, and the other capitals around the world of nations pushing the US to “come on board,” is not international regulation, but limiting the freedom we enjoy within the United States to keep and bear arms….

[more]

The UN is coming!  ARRRRRRGH!!

On a related gun crazy note, a resurgent militia movement in Kentucky is taking target practice at UN-style blue helmets.

You know, in case they invade the Papa John’s corporate campus.  (That’s the UN’s real “real agenda”….)

With any luck, this incarnation of the Kentucky militia won’t have leaders who commit weapons violations and intimidate witnesses.

From the Louisville Courier-Journal:

Bob Resnick didn’t believe all the right-wing militia conspiracy theories — the FEMA internment camps or the government coffins stockpiled for the day the feds declare martial law and rounds up dissenters. But they made him wonder.

Then America’s economy collapsed and the nation elected Barack Obama, and the resulting chatter about socialist incursion, rampant gun control and a government takeover of health care made him fear where the nation was heading. So the 43-year-old disabled Louisvillian searched the Internet for local militia groups who seemed to echo his misgivings.

A few weeks later, on a rainy October afternoon, Resnick drove into a gun range in a secluded Bullitt County hollow to join 15 fatigue-clad members of the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters, a Louisville-based militia that was holding a training session on assault weapons.

Surrounded by the pop of gunshots, Resnick squinted into the sight of his black semi-automatic rifle, blasting a hole in one of two U.N.-blue helmets the group was using for target practice — a symbol of global tyranny to militia groups — and left as the group’s newest member.

“The way everything’s going nowadays, if the economy tanks and they do declare martial law, and they do like California with all the riots and stuff, I’d like to know I’ve got a group I can be with so I’m not on my own,” he said.

After nearly a decade of decline, militia groups are seeing a resurgence in Kentucky and across the nation, fueled partly — according to militia leaders and watchdog groups — by the bad economy and President Obama’s election. The Freedom Fighters have seen their membership triple since summer to more than 100, according to Col. Kevin Terrell, a Louisville-area contractor who leads the group….

[more]