The US District Court had enjoined application of the ten day waiting period to three classes of gun buyers (I forget them now, but seem to remember that the largest one was persons who already owned a firearm--and also those who have a current CCW license). California moved to stay this on appeal, and the District Judge denied the motion.
Some very nice language:
"Defendant‟s motion suggests that the public has an interest in preventing violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have a propensity to commit violence. However, Defendant submitted no evidence that demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period will have that effect on the three as-applied classes to any appreciable degree, and all persons wishing to purchase a firearm will still have to pass the background check."
"Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant‟s favor."
Story here. The battle in DC continues. Heller established that a ban on possession failed Second Amendment muster; this followup case secured the same ruling as to DC's absolute ban on carrying. DC responded by adopting essentially a strict "may issue" system, and now Alan Gura goes for that. Stay tuned...
UPDATE: here's a story on the hearing.
Sounds like the Justice Minister was overridden.
Hat tip to Joe Olson....
...by easing restrictions on gun ownership. Some folks have their heads screwed on straight.
It's a motion for preliminary injunction, i.e., to enjoin enforcement of the statute until trial or dispositive motions terminate the case. The statute in question forbids firearms dealers to display firearms, or advertising, any place where they are visible from outside the store. It thus forbids truthful and non-misleading commercial expression, and does so inside the person's own premises.
As I recall, that prohibition is in the Uniform Firearms Act of the 1920s and 1930s. The UFA was meant to head off laws like the Sullivan Act and this (and the requirement that firearms sold be "securely wrapped" before leaving the store) were probably meant as concessions to the antigunners. "At least you'll never have to see them."
I'd say they make me pull my hair out, but I have little to pull, and pull my beard out just doesn't have the ring. "Can a felon own a gun? 5 loopholes in Federal law".
"Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun,"
No, it was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
"1. A 1965 amendment to the federal Firearms Act of 1938 allows felons who want to own a gun the ability to apply for "relief from the disability of not being able to possess a gun.""
Yes, and for ten years appropriation riders have made that relief unavailable.
"2. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in order to be prohibited from owning a gun, a convicted felon must have been convicted of a crime that is "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Although even the least serious felony convictions carry a sentence of up to three years, sentencing guidelines are open to the interpretation of judges. Thus while it would be rare for a felony conviction sentence to be less than one year, it is not impossible."
Which means nothing. "Punishable by imprisonment" keys on the potential sentence, not the actual sentence given.
"3. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, "Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored" are not considered "convicted" and thus they would not be prohibited from owning a gun."
Yes, that's in the statute, part of the 1986 amendments. A conviction that has been set aside, pardoned, or had civil rights restored (unless the restoration excludes gun rights) doesn't count as a conviction. That's a loophole?
"4. Certain "white collar" crimes that result in a felony conviction don't prohibit those felons from owning guns. For example, felony convictions related to antitrust laws, restraint of trade, or unfair trade practices do not carry the same prohibition on gun ownership...."
True, that was put in the GCA (and its predecessor, the Federal Firearms Act) by Tom Dodd, Sr., to protect a major corporation in CT that had a conviction of that type, and owned an ammo manufacturing firm. Being wealthy and powerful has its benefits.
"5. Some states will reinstate a felon's right to own a gun after they have served their sentence or gone through a period of "cleansing.""
This overlaps with No. 3.
This is up there with "60% of quotations found on the internet are entirely spurious." Abraham Lincoln, 1864 Inaugural Address.
The in-depth review is by Prof. Brian Anse Patrick.
The Quakenbush -- a .458 air gun. I guess he decided, if it was good enough for Lewis and Clark, it's good enough today.
In the last election, we had a cliffhanger of a race. It pitted Ron Barber, anti-gun and backed by a lot of independent expenditures by anti-gun organizations, against Col. (ret.) Martha McSally, who not only was pro-gun, but is retired Air Force, flew combat missions, holds a Master's from Harvard and graduated first in her class from the Air War College. In short, not the typical ("I'm a politician and likable") candidate.
She prevailed in the first vote count by 161 votes, out of nearly a quarter million cast, but the slim margin makes a recount automatic. She's asking for contributions to handle the recount. I've given, and would ask you to consider doing the same.
NY law requires permits to possess handguns, and after a firearm owner dies sets a limit on how quickly his or her survivors must transfer the handguns to the heirs. In practice, the time limits are not often enforced. But Buffalo police have begun showing up at the houses of deceased gun owners, demanding to be allowed to search for and seize firearms. The program involves comparing death records to handgun permit lists, and the officers apparently are not informing the survivors that they can get the guns back, and improperly taking long arms, too.
As Dave Workman observes, so much for the claim that registration does not lead to confiscation.
Ninth Circuit order here. Peruta essentially held unconstitutional California's combination of "may issue" carry permits and banning all carry, open as well as concealed, absent such a permit. It was brought against the county sheriff. He announced he would not appeal further (to en banc rehearing or for cert.). California, which had not been sued and had not participated, then moved to intervene and take over, as did Brady Campaign (which probably had no standing and was just looking for media coverage). The panel denied both motions by a 2-1 ruling.
California can always move for rehearing en banc as to its motion. But apparently the Circuit wasn't willing to review the case itself en banc (which it can do on its own motionif a majority of judges want to), so odds there are not good. Ah, now I think I remember proceedings were stayed until this motion was ruled upon, so maybe the time period for voluntary en banc only now begins.
It concerns the PA "super-preemption" statute and its legal problems. I only wish I'd gotten one or two more minutes of time. I'd meant to suggest that there is something curious about organizations (cities) suing to establish that organizations have no power to sue.
UPDATE: the spammer (advertising for a lawyer in India) just got clipped. Thanks for the news.
UPDATE: Yep, the attorney fees section is the important one. As far as giving NRA standing, NRA as a general rule has standing to sue on behalf of its members. There had been two cases where PA courts refused to allow NRA, or the individual plaintiffs, to have standing to attack city requirement to report lost or stolen guns. I read those opinions not as keying on the organization's status, but rather on the idea that the court controversy must be over something likely to occur and not mere speculation, and the possibility that the 2-3-4 individual plaintiffs named would have a gun stolen or lost and thus become subject to the statute was simply too low. (I think the decisions were wrong in that the odds that NRA members in PA as a whole will have lost or stolen guns in the foreseeable future is not speculation but a 100% certainty, so the organization has standing).
Yep. Of course they should have referred to the gun rights movement. But, astonishingly, the article comes from The Washington Post!
In recent weeks, I've had the luxury of a little time for non-law reading, a luxury I've rarely had for many years. A few military histories that really stand out to me (to order them, just click on the image):
A history of fighter pilots, written by a fighter pilot. I think he had the aid of a ghost writer, since it does have a few mistakes that a fighter pilot wouldn't make -- such as describing a 20mm projectile as the size of a woman's forearm. But a good read.
There are dozens of books on the Battle of Midway, the turning point in the Pacific War, but this rewrites much of that history, since it employs the Japanese records. Major changes: when the American dive bombers came down, the Japanese planes were not packed on the deck, but below in the hanger deck. Those who thought otherwise thought that the Japanese used the American system, where planes were refueled and rearmed on deck. But the Japanese used the British system, where that was done below decks and the planes then brought back up. The records show the planes were still below deck; their strike would not be ready for launch for another 30-45 minutes. Also, our fleet doctrine played a major role. Prewar war games had shown that whichever fleet hit the enemy carriers first was likely to win. As a result, American carriers carried more dive bombers (good against combustible carriers) and fewer torpedo bombers than the Japanese, and put a higher emphasis on scouting and on attacking immediately.
This is a history of the Royal Navy in WWII, written by a historian I greatly enjoy. It goes into much detail about the fighting in the Med, where the British ran convoys to Malta. Churchill does not come off looking good. He underestimated the Navy's difficulties and committed it to more fights than it could handle, often over things that could have been ignored. He devoted major resources to Bomber Command, which was claiming it would quickly win the way by smashing German cities, at times when the planes were desperately needed to deal with the U-boats in the Atlantic.
A good history of the Battle of Britain. Churchill and Bomber Command look bad here, also. Fighter Command desperately needed Hurricanes and Spitfires, but resources were devoted to bombers. That the battle was won was due to Marshal Hugh Dowding, who had foreseen it in 1935. He pushed for creation of the radar stations, when that was considered doubtful technology, linked them to a central command with underground, concrete encased phone lines, created the central control system, and fought like mad in 1940 to keep from wasting his fighters trying to prop up the French(which Churchill much wanted to do). He created systems for salvaging crashed planes, coordinated outside the usual channels the system for getting replacement planes where they were needed overnight, and in the process stepped on a lot of toes. So in the end he never got his last promotion, even though he'd saved his country.
UPDATE: I was in a hurry -- the links are the images of the books, or the box saying no image is available. The Battle of Britain one was Michael Korda's "On Wings Like Eagles." (I'll fix the link if I ever have time!)
Four FFLs and the Calgun Foundation have challenged a provision of California gun laws -- on a First Amendment basis.
The law in question forbids a dealer to advertise handguns with a sign visible from outside the store, or to display the word "handgun." I believe it derives from the ancient Uniform Firearms Act. The case sounds like a winner; business speech can have some controls not allowed in non-business speech, but outlawing truthful speech is a problem even there.
Speaking of litigation, the NYSRA & NRA suit against the NY SAFE act is set for oral argument on December 8.
Right here, from the Crime Prevention Research Center.
"Everytown's recent analysis of mass shootings is riddled with errors. Mistakes are made on the number of mass shootings as well as the extension of mental illness, the killers' ages, and even where the attack occurred."
Johnson v. United States. Issue is whether possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun qualifies as a crime of violence under the ACCA. I'd say the government is going to lose this one. I don't know the defendant's attorney, Katherine M. Menendez, Fed. Public Defender, but she did a really first-rate job of arguing her case.
I'm on the plane, coming back home. It was a nice event, the students very polite and courteous (this is not always a trait of law students!). A few interesting points: the Common Cause speaker went on a theme of "NRA uses its money to buy elections." I pointed out that the money comes predominantly from members' dues and contributions, so this is five million Americans' money being used to affect politics, hard to say what's wrong with that. In the course of making that point, I said it's millions of people chipping in their annual dues of $35, or whatever it may now be... and two female students added "yes, it's still $35." Another student later shared with me his experiences in gun collecting.
I got to shake hands with Mrs. Thurgood Marshall, who was attending. I'd seen her late husband speak at U of Ariz. years ago; he struck me as one Justice with an active sense of humor.
The event was named for civil rights attorney Wiley Branton; one of hsi family members was there and mentioned that he carried guns during his "time in the trenches."