Story here. It's the DoJ memos on how to manipulate the press.
"I've talked to NYT, NBC and NPR --gave them all this. NBC not likely to go. Still waiting on other two."
"No stories..From NYT, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NBC, Bloomberg ... I"m also calling Sharryl"s editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She's out of control"
Reply: "Good. Her piece was really bad for AG. Why do you think nobody else wrote? Were they not fed the docs?...And I sent NJ's Susan Davis your way. She's writing on Issa/FandF and I said you could load her up on the leaks, etc."
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).