Ohio: two perps try to abduct a woman walking her dog. She draws her gun, and they reconsider.
Florida: armed robber enters jewelry store, pulls gun on 89 year old WWII vet. The vet grabs perp's gun, draws his own .38, and puts six rounds into perp. (The perp survived: the vet needs a bigger gun and/or hotter loads. He may have been using the old 158 grain round noses).
In the dispute over how many self-defense cases occur, one data point often cited by those seeking to minimize the number is the FBI Uniform Crime Report's count of justifiable homicides (a legal category that includes self-defense). This is usually in the range of 900 a year, including several hundred by police. While that doesn't count self-defense that doesn't result in the perp's death, it is argued that it is inconsistent with hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive uses annually.
What's not realized is that the FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.
But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle -- the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as "commission of a felony."
Washington, DC. Federal employee gets into a minor fender-bender, gets a $100 traffic ticket. Alleging he was on duty at the time, the Dept of Justice appears on his behalf and gets the traffic ticket removed to U.S. District Court. (It later reconsidered).
Egad -- the power of the Feds to "remove" a case to Federal Court arises under Article III §2. But that relates to cases "arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made," not to local traffic rules. It also covers "controversies to which the United States shall be a party," but the US didn't get the traffic citation. On a policy level, removal is meant to protect a Federal official against getting railroaded in State court for doing his job. A traffic citation in a D.C. court hardly falls into that class.
A friend had a case where a lady sued the Post Office, before it became semi-independent, for failure to deliver a sporting event ticket. It was a minor case filed in small claims court. The Feds removed it to Federal District Court. He told the Ass't US Attorney that he could have settled the case for less public expense than it took to file the motion, and asked why a Federal District Judge (of whom there are only a few here, probably only 2-3 back then) should be tied up hearing a case involving a few hundred dollars. He got nowhere.
It's a blog post by Prof. Nick Johnson of Fordham Law. He discusses Otis McDonald and Shaneen Allen (who faces a mandatory three year jail term for having driven into NJ with a firearm for which she had a PA permit to carry concealed).
"So another rhetorical question: Why have the nominal champions of civil rights ignored Otis McDonald and the self-defense interests of the sober, mature members of the Black community he represented?
The search for answers highlights priorities wildly out of whack. Compare the relative non-acknowledgment of Otis McDonald with the broad consternation over how Black criminals are treated. Michelle Alexander's acclaimed book calling the state of Black incarceration the "new Jim Crow" illustrates this....
A final question, and this one is not rhetorical: Will the people who invoke the power and rhetoric of civil rights to condemn the disparate treatment of heroin and crack dealers, come to the rescue of a law-abiding Black woman whose crime was misunderstanding the multilayered bureaucracies that restrict the federally-guaranteed constitutional right to arms?
Shaneen Allen failed to appreciate that only one piece of the right to keep and bear arms operates in New Jersey. She perhaps concluded that two high-profile Supreme Court opinions affirming the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, plus a Pennsylvania license to carry a concealed firearm, would be enough to secure her right to carry a gun for self-defense, even in New Jersey. She was mistaken, and might be faulted for her slippery grasp of U.S. federalism. But with that as her crime, she is still infinitely more worthy of being rescued than anyone on the recent list of presidential pardons.
So far, there have been no protests or demonstrations seeking justice for Shaneen Allen. Like Otis McDonald, she is ignored by the nominal defenders of civil rights. Let us hope that this is not the end of the story."
An interesting article by Frank Miniter. The part I found most amusing:
"[A] mainstream reporter next to me in the press section gasped, "Oh no," when Justice Anthony Kennedy hinted that he believed the Second Amendment to be an individual right while asking the government's attorney a question."
I was there and remember the question. Actually, there were two, but a listener wouldn't have noted unless he'd been following the Second Amendment legal issue for thirty years. The second, yes, a reporter could understand where Kennedy was coming from.
The first question was whether we could grasp the meaning of the Second Amendment by considering its two clauses separately. Yes, a militia is important. And yes, the people have a right to arms. The importance of the militia is independent of the right to arms and the right to arms independent of the militia.
"RESISTANCE BY INFERIOR COURTS TO SUPREME COURT'S SECOND AMENDMENT DECISIONS," by Alice Beard, in Tennessee Law Review. It takes an optimistic view of long-term trends. At the moment, judicial recognition of the 2A as an individual right is relatively new and, to many courts, even irregular, something to be approached with caution or outright resistance. In the longer term, it may become accepted as one more American constitutional right.
Rather funny. Remington decides to move its AR-15-making operations to Alabama, and with it 2,000 jobs. Cuomo's reaction:
"We have been talking to Remington about rehabbing and redoing their facility in New York. It is a very important part of New York. It is a big employer in New York. Their plant here is old and we want to work with them on restoring that."
So these rifles are just killing machines, that do not belong in civilian hands, but please manufacture them here, we'll be happy to help?
Filed this morning, Silvester v. Harris (Eastern Dist. of Cal) looks like a solid win (after you go through all the pages detailing California's unbelievably complex answer to trying to prevent bad guys from buying guns). It finds the "cooling off" period rational for the 10 day mandatory waiting period to be unfounded, and basing the requirement on "we need the time for all the background checks" makes no sense when applied to (1) a person already permitted to own a firearm or (2) a CCW permit holder or (3) anyone whose background checks are completed in less than 10 days.
Reading between the lines, you can get a grasp of how much work went into this win. You don't base a winning record on "this is wrong, so let's sue and look for an obvious win."
Washington state is involved in a battle over Initiative 541, a lengthy antigun measure... and, as David Workman reports, a study of contributions in support of it finds that 84% of contributions came from ten zip codes in urban and suburban Seattle. Here's a map of the Seattle area to give some idea.
Self protection, like laws, are for the little people.
But won't the parakeets dislike the new format? It'll probably be glossy and not very absorbent.
The assignment was to write something that could be a "status" statement on Facebook. Glad to know the schools are teaching and valuing the important things in life.