In an opinion by George W. Bush appointed Judge Milan Smith, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a criminal defendant’s claim that he has a Second Amendment right to own a machine gun:

In Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession, concluding that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” However, the Court stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own certain weapons, and that it “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” The Court also concluded that the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” limits the right to keep and carry arms.

Heller did not specify the types of weapons that qualify as “dangerous and unusual,” but the Court stated that it would be “startling” for the Second Amendment to protect machine guns. Since Heller was decided, every circuit court to address the issue has held that there is no Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.

We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not protected by the Second Amendment. An object is “dangerous” when it is “likely to cause serious bodily harm.” Congress defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The machine gun was first widely used during World War I, where it “demonstrated its murderously effective firepower over and over again.” A modern machine gun can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute, allowing a shooter to kill dozens of people within a matter of seconds. Short of bombs, missiles, and biochemical agents, we can conceive of few weapons that are more dangerous than machine guns.

As a matter of law, this was an easy case. The Ninth Circuit now joins the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits which have all rejected claims that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own machine guns. Nevertheless, it is an important reminder that the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases still permit robust gun regulation. As conservative Justice Scalia explained in his Heller opinion, the Second Amendment not only does not apply to “dangerous and unusual” weapons, it also does not apply to “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The Department of Homeland Security starts accepting applications for deferred action from DREAM Act-eligible young adults on Wednesday. Under a new directive President Obama announced in June, undocumented immigrants between 15 and 30 years of age who have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least five years, have not been convicted of a felony or “significant” misdemeanor, and have graduated from high school, earned a GED, or served in the military can apply for a two-year work authorization that will let them live in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

As many as 1.7 million DREAMers could benefit from this new policy. Maria Gomez, a UCLA graduate who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 8, is one of those beneficiaries. Her story — about being the first in her family to graduate from college and putting herself through graduate school — is one of dozens that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has highlighted on the Senate floor to emphasize the need for the DREAM Act to help undocumented young adults who came to the U.S. as children. Many of them are now eligible for deferred action.

More than 5,000 people gathered in Chicago’s Navy Pier for a workshop about filling out the paperwork to apply for work authorization. And a day before the deferred action policy began, people lined up to get their records in order at Honduran Consulate’s office:

Evelyn Medina, 23, got in line at about 6:30 a.m., and she wasn’t alone. With her passport in hand, Medina was all smiles as she walked out of the building just before 2 p.m., saying “Finally” as she clutched the document.

Medina, a Maryland college student studying social work, said she expected to be ready to apply Wednesday. If she is allowed to stay in the U.S. and work, she hopes eventually to earn a master’s degree.

There are undocumented immigrants in every state who are eligible for deferred action — most of whom live in California, Texas, or Illinois. Among the prospective beneficiaries who are over 15 years of age, almost 60 percent are already working in the U.S. As a result of Obama’s policy, this population can work legally and improve their employment conditions and wages.

Last September, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan spoke at the Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center, a Washington, D.C. arm of the conservative institution that was founded under the leadership of Supreme Court spouse Virginia Thomas. The speech was delivered in commemoration of Constitution Day, and it provides a fairly substantial window into how he understands America’s most important document. Unfortunately, the speech also raises very real doubts about whether Mr. Ryan can distinguish the founders’ vision from his own. Ryan’s speech does not simply defend his laissez faire vision for the country, it suggests that this austere vision is mandated by the Constitution itself:

We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money, and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

Watch it:

There’s great deal of radicalism tucked away in this seemingly high-minded speech. “Sound money” is often a code word for abandoning modern monetary policy and returning to the gold standard, but Ryan later makes clear that he really means that the Federal Reserve should abandon all efforts to reduce unemployment. Currently, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to control inflation and ensure unemployment does not spiral out of control. Ryan, however, concludes we must “refocus the Federal Reserve on price stability,” eliminating its obligation to assist the unemployed. He does not cite a single word of the Constitution to explain why he thinks the Founders mandated this result.

Similarly, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about “low taxes,” despite Ryan’s suggestion that his preferred tax policy is blessed by the Founders. The original Constitution placed no limits on the amount of federal taxes, although it did require “direct taxes” to be “apportioned among the several states.” The Sixteenth Amendment expanded this power even further, providing that the United States “shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” America can have a high income tax or a low income tax, and it can tax the people most able to afford it at a higher rate than the poor and the middle class. This choice is made by the American people’s representatives, not by the Constitution.

The most disturbing aspect of Ryan’s speech, however, is a seemingly innocuous claim that the “the enforcement of contracts” is protected by the “constitutional cornerstone of our free society.” The Constitution actually has very little to say about the subject of contracts. Although it provides fairly robust limits against state governments rescinding contracts between the government and a private party, the Constitution is mute on federal laws that impair contracts between private parties.

The reason for this should be obvious. Worker protection laws limit the kind of contractual arrangements employers can force upon their workers — a minimum wage law forbids contracts that pay workers less than a certain amount. Consumer protection laws limit the kind of contracts merchants and manufacturers can enter into with their customers — a product safety law might forbid companies from selling dangerous products. If the Constitution actually did shield contracts in the way Ryan suggests, nearly all laws protecting workers and consumers would be unconstitutional.

None of this is to say that contracts aren’t important to a vibrant economy. They obviously are, which is why every state’s common law ensures that most contracts will be enforced. But the price of economic progress is not leaving workers and consumers powerless against rapacious corporations. For much of its history, America has tried to strike an appropriate balance between enforcing ordinary contracts and forbidding exploitative ones.

But, of course, there was a very dark period in American history when the Supreme Court did embrace an entirely fabricated “right to contract” of the sort that Ryan seems to embrace. During this long-discredited era, laws protecting the rights of workers were treated as constitutionally suspect and frequently struck down. Ryan’s suggestions that the Constitution embodies his favorite economic theory raises very real concerns that he would return America to this unfortunate era — an era that culminated in the Great Depression — if given the opportunity to do so.

[HT: Josh Blackman]

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is no stranger to extreme positions or conspiratorial thinking. But Paul sunk to a new low last night, using his Senate Twitter account to promote a false report from one of the world’s most noxious conspiracy websites.

Paul appeared amused by an article on infowars.com suggesting the National Weather Service is stockpiling ammunition:

Mad a/b the weather or bad forecasts? I wouldn’t complain, Nat’l Weather Svc just ordered 46k hollow-point bullets bit.ly/NAd071

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) August 14, 2012

This story is false (a point that Business Insider, who also linked to the story, should correct). In reality, the ammunition was ordered by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, but a clerical error in the paperwork indicated otherwise. Worse, the article that Paul linked to was published on the homepage of what the Anti-Defamation League calls “The Conspiracy King.”

Alex Jones, the popular radio host who runs InfoWars, routinely traffics in outlandish and pernicious conspiracy theories. Jones is an unapologetic 9/11 Truther who believes that something called the Bilderberg Group (which purportedly controls President Obama) is plotting to take over the United States while Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning to put Americans in concentration camps. Indeed, InfoWars’ story about the fictitious NWS ammo order is part of its broader focus on the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to wage war on the American population.

That a United States Senator would lend even a smidgen of credence to this conspiratorial nonsense is disgraceful. But perhaps we shouldn’t be a surprise: InfoWars’ biggest mainstream booster is Matt Drudge, one of the most influential news sources on the American right. Naturally, InfoWars’ story on the NWS ammunition order was Drudge’s top link yesterday.

Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) handpicked Secretary of State Ken Detzner announced on Tuesday that the administration will soon begin another voter purge to remove “ineligible” voters from the rolls before the November 6 election. Florida county election supervisors remain wary of the effort, however, telling ThinkProgress that they may not have enough time to implement the purge.

Last month the U.S. Department of Homeland Security agreed to a request from Florida and other states to allow them to compare voter rolls against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. Though it is unclear how this list can logistically be used by the states, Detzner told elections supervisors the state would be developing a list of names for “additional actions in accordance with applicable laws.”

But even if Scott’s purge survives multiple lawsuits challenges its timing and legality, the mechanics of removing people from the voting rolls between now and the November elections may render Detzner’s efforts moot.

Volusia County Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall (R) told ThinkProgress that she has received no communication from the state whatsoever and does not see how she would have time to carry out the effort:

The law hasn’t changed for the process we have to go through. You’re looking at the letter going out [to those identified by the state as potentially non-citizen voters], then they get 30 days to respond, [then the county would] advertise the names in the paper, [and after that it would require an additional] 30 days to remove [the voters] from the records. I don’t think we can do it. Physically, I don’t think we can do it. That doesn’t mean we can’t check to see after the election [if any non-citizens voted]… I don’t want anyone on the books who isn’t eligible, but that’s what the odd-numbered years are for.

In other words, it would take at least 60 days between when the counties sent out letters and when the counties could remove any voters from the rolls. With the election just 83 days away, that does not leave much time.

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher (D) — who refused to comply with the initial purge effort after determining that the Scott administration’s error-riddled list was “not credible” — expressed similar skepticism about the viability of a new purge effort. In an interview with ThinkProgress, she noted that before even sending out letters to voters, county supervisors must determine whether the allegation against the voter is “is credible and reliable.” She added:

We’re in election mode. We have a lot of responsibilities in the presidential election cycle. Our major focus is to be prepared to hold general election. Logistically [any new purge effort] would be challenging. We’d like to work with the Division of Elections and the Secretary to make sure our rolls are accurate. We want to have clean voter rolls, but we want to make sure we are not unduly taking people who shouldn’t be taken off off.

If these two supervisors are any indication, Scott’s Ahab-like quest to purge voters from his state’s voter roles may have to wait until after November.

In a blow to voting rights advocates, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the state’s restrictive voter ID law, which could disenfranchise as many as 750,000 citizens in the state.

Though voter ID proponents were unable to cite even a single case of voter impersonation that would justify the ID requirement, Simpson “didn’t rule on the full merits of the case,” instead limiting his scope to whether it was a proper exercise of the legislature’s authority, according to the AP. They continue:

The original rationale in Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled Legislature for the law — to prevent election fraud — played little role in the case before Simpson since the state’s lawyers acknowledged that they are “not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud.” Instead, they insisted that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election-related laws when they chose to require voters to show widely available forms of photo identification.

Voting rights advocates plan to appeal the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which will likely issue its own ruling before the November election. There is currently an even 3-3 split between Democrats and Republicans on the Court; the 7th Justice, Republican Joan Orie Melvin, is under suspension because of an unrelated corruption scandal.

Since Simpson ruled to uphold the law, Democrats will need one crossover vote to win a majority and strike down the law. Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a moderate Republican from Philadelphia, is most likely to side with the Democrats.

The federal Justice Department is also looking into whether Pennsylvania’s voter ID complies with federal law.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) believes Medicare is unconstitutional. Indeed, he told a Tea Party group last year that “I don’t find in the Constitution that it is the job of the government to provide health care,” a statement which suggests that he also believes that Medicaid and the veterans health system are also unconstitutional.

So it is a bit surprising to see that Akin is now running an ad attacking Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the woman he wants to replace in the United States Senate, for being insufficiently loyal to Medicare:

Akin fights to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, defending our Missouri values. Claire McCaskill voted with Obama 98 percent of the time. was the deciding vote to pass Obamacare, voted to cut and gut Medicare by $700 billion.

Watch it:

Again, Todd Akin believes Medicare is unconstitutional. So the truth is that he wants to “protect and strengthen” Medicare in the same way that Luke Skywalker fought to protect and strengthen the Death Star.

Yet while Akin’s ad is impossible to square with his actual beliefs, it is unlikely to be the first such ad from a staunchly anti-Medicare candidate attacking their opponent for somehow undermining Medicare. GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan is the author of a GOP plan to privatize Medicare, slash Medicare benefits and then phase out the Medicare program over time — a fact which the Romney campaign quickly identified as a serious liability to their chances of winning in November. In an effort to neutralize this liability, Team Romney started attacking President Obama for allegedly cutting $700 billion from Medicare almost immediate after the Ryan pick was announced.

The truth, of course, is that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act redirects wasteful Medicare spending, such as billions in unnecessary giveaways to insurance companies, to better uses such as providing prescription drugs for seniors. Paul Ryan’s most recent budget, by contrast, would also eliminate this wasteful spending — but would use the savings to pay for tax cuts for the rich.