Story here. The trial starts Monday, and the defendants are two Sacramento County deputies, an FFL, and a private purchaser.
As I read the story, it arises out of California's discriminatory gun laws. To be sold new in CA, a handgun must pass "safety tests," which are expensive (they must be done by State-licensed labs, and involve a lot more than safety). Lots of ordinary handguns -- such as the Ruger .380 said to be at issue) don't have the certification.
BUT (despite this being a supposed safety standard) police officers (and as I recall the law, employees of a prosecutor's office) can buy unlisted guns from a dealer. I'd guess that the charges involve officers buying unlisted guns and reselling them to private persons who wanted an unlisted firearm. Since California requires all sales to go through an FFL, and also as I recall requires handgun sales to be reported to the State, there can't be an argument that these were true "straw sales," intended to hide the identity of the ultimate owner.
A judge of the Federal Court of Claims has awarded former agent Jay Doybyns over half a million in damages for agency misconduct. "Misconduct" that amounted to betraying and backstabbing an agent who had spent years infiltrating the hell's angels.
His book outlines his work. It's likely the most dangerous undercover work of which I've ever heard: he was infiltrating a large gang to whom murder was a casual matter, and he got full membership by faking the murder of a rival gang member. Then his agency abandoned him, let his new false ID become known, and when his house was destroyed (and wife and kids nearly killed) in an arson fire, backstabbed him with suggestions that he might have done it himself.
An article in the Christian Science Monitor asks "Oklahoma City beheading: Will jihad-style attack boost 'bring gun to work' laws?"
I can remember when CSM made the Washington Post look like Guns and Ammo; if the other side is losing CSM (phrased otherwise, if it's become open to arguments on the issue) they are indeed in deep trouble. The article says that the defender used a handgun (earlier reports stated it was some manner of rifle). It says the sheriff's department confirms he was not acting in any capacity as their deputy at the time. The only even vaguely antigun point is the very last sentence (which I suspect was stuck in by an editor who was gritting his teeth) to the effect that since the defender had special training (which may or may not be true, depending on the office) maybe this doesn't prove that allowing guns at work is always good.
Moore, Oklahoma. Business fires violent nut case, he rams vehicle into headquarters, charges inside with knife, decapitates one woman, begins stabbing another...
An employee ends the assault (and almost certainly intended mass killing) with three fast shots from a rifle... given the setting, certainly a semi auto, and likely a dreaded "assault rifle." Employee is a reserve deputy (depending upon the jurisdiction, anything from a friend of the sheriff to a member of the "unorganized militia," an armed civilian who is available for public service if called upon).
So intended mass murderer uses a knife, defender stops it with gun and likely a terrible "assault weapon." How to make this fit the desired narrative?
CNN refers to the defender as a "coworker" who is "also an Oklahoma County reserve deputy." No mention of the firearm used.
A television station that runs the CNN story says "a sheriff's deputy shot Nolen."
Even Fox refers to the defender as an "off duty officer," while noting that he used a rifle.
I have yet to find a media account that describes the rifle (to be fair, that info may not yet be available, but I rather doubt we'll hear it later, either).
It's a promotion project for a new book on guns featured in movies.
'Nuff said. At least they did bring criminal charges against the shooter; only his poor marksmanship kept this from becoming a homicide charge.
Binderup v. Holder, Eastern Dist. of PA, No. 13-cv-06750. (I won't attach it because it's an 86 page pdf).
By way of background: a constitutional challenge can be a facial one, aimed at the face of the statute (any and all applications of the statute are unconstitutional) or "as applied" (regardless of whether the statute itself is unconstitutional, its application to this person in this context would violate a constitutional command). This was an as applied challenge, brought by Alan Gura.
Plaintiff was convicted, long ago, under a State law punishing corruption of a minor (in this case, a 17 year old girl with whom he had an affair). The statute expressly terms this a misdemeanor, but allows a punishment of up to five years' imprisonment, making it a bar under Federal law (which bars firearms possession by anyone convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year, except for offenses expressly termed misdemeanors and punishable by no more than two years).
The court decides that, in light of the nonviolent nature of the offense, its antiquity, and the fact that plaintiff has kept a clean record before and since, using it to bar him from possession would violate the 2A.
Nice reasoning, and as we see more of these (and more payments of legal fees by the government) Congress might have an incentive to limit the disqualification to offenses that actually suggest a person is too risky to be allowed a firearm. That was raised back in 1968, and again when the GCA was rewritten in the 1980s, but encountered opposition that essentially went searching for statutes that would no longer be disqualifies but would suggest a person was a risk. (The final fall back was always "but they only got Al Capone for a tax violation.").
She's going to be admitted to pretrial diversion, which in practice means going to a bit of effort in exchange for having charges dismissed. Kudos to attorney Ev Nappen!
Here's the Attorney General's memo, dated today, finding that (absent aggravating factors) a prosecutor can offer diversion to avoid imprisonment under the NJ statute imposing a 3.5 year mandatory minimum sentence.
After striking Washington DC's complete ban on firearms carrying, district judge Frederick Scullin granted the city a stay until Oct. 22 to give it time to pass new regulations. DC then requested an indefinite stay until it had appealed the ruling, and the judge has denied the request. This keeps the pressure on for DC to actually do something, rather than figuring that it might have to do something a year or two down the road. DC has filed a motion to reconsider, which will be argued October 17 (and is rarely granted) and the time to file a notice of appeal won't start until after that ruling.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is editorializing that the City should appeal even if it passes new regulations.
Story here. Brady tries to claim credit for Cabela's involvement in anti-straw man training, when in fact the program was created long ago by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Cabela's enrolled in it before Brady opened their latest anti-FFL campaign.
Of course, it will only be a fundraising "scandal" if the media cares about it, so this will never achieve scandal status...
Story here. He was a heck of a nice guy, and died in harness, as Shakespeare said. I am told he was doing his job at the September NRA Board meeting when he suddenly collapsed, I assume a massive coronary or stroke. They gave him CPR but he didn't make it. Gad, he was only 55, and slender. My brother in law nearly died of a massive coronary at age 52, coming off a tennis court, but fast CPR (and a cardiologist and a defib unit nearby) pulled him through.
A good summary at Reason.com. I've heard of similar things happening in California. Regulatory "inspections" are traditionally given only loose Fourth Amendment protections by the courts, because they usually are no big deal. But some locals send the "inspectors" in with real law enforcement, supposedly to protect them. The team with them then uses the opportunity as a chance for a warrantless search (at least as to anything in "plain view.")
Here, a barbershop inspector, entitled to make sure the barbers were licensed and presumably to see that they were following regulations (combs dipped in disinfectant, etc.) made a completely unnecessary inspection, accompanied by a SWAT-style team, for purposes of looking for drugs and recruiting informants (i.e., catching someone with them). The Eleventh Circuit upholds the resulting lawsuit and denies the officials "qualified immunity" (a court-created defense for actions that a reasonable actor would not have known were unconstitutional).
It's strange to reflect that the Supreme Court only got around to putting the teeth in "unreasonable search" five or ten years ago. Until then, all the case law was over whether they had probable cause, whether they had a warrant or fell within an exception for a warrant, etc.. Whether the search was, overall, an unreasonable one was largely ignored. Perhaps that was before SWAT tactics became almost the default, searches tended to be reasonable in their approach. When serving a search warrant meant sending out a few squad cars to knock, show the warrant, and search the place, "unreasonable search" was rarely a major issue.