ANTI-SECOND-AMENDMENT EDITORIALS: Reader Brian Hoffman sends these observations:

You oughtn’t be surprised about the LA Times Second Amendment editorial. A only slightly-differently worded editorial was in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday, with the same lack of discussion of the history or scholarship of the Second Amendment, the same talk about the position of the government since the 1930s (without mentioning Miller by name), and the same accusation of Ashcroft’s personal prejudices.

I know exactly where this came from, since it’s merely an expansion of what Volokh mentioned (in one sentence) as the talking points of the Violence Policy Center:

This, a lawyer representing the antigun Violence Policy Center opined, is a departure from what was “the government’s position for more than 60 years”–and an illegitimate one, because “people who happen to be in office temporarily shouldn’t use the office to promote their personal views.”

The LA Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ought to be published in critical and synoptic editions, in order to show how lazy and biased they really are (I doubt Matt Welch will simply run press releases).

Yes, the extent to which both papers — and a lot of others — simply regurgitate press releases of groups they agree with is a disgrace, and someone ought to point it out on a regular basis. The Star Tribune editorial, by the way, flat-out misrepresents what the U.S. Supreme Court has said on the subject. For more background, see this piece.