Story here. The one thing lacking is just how any of these will affect mass shootings. But then I suppose a person can overlook that detail -- in this context, they are playing to a "base" that regards gun restrictions as a matter of religious dogma, existing beyond proof of truth or falsity.
From 1997, tho I just saw it. Using a 5,200 person telephone surgery, authors conclude that annually about 1.9 million people draw a gun during a home intrusion, but don't actually see the intruder, another 503,000 draw a gun and do see the intruder and (not surprisingly) 497,000 report the intruder fled in response to the gun. These don't include defensive uses other than in response to home invasion, and on the other hand surely include some where no intruder was sighted because there was no intruder, but certain support Kleck's conclusions that defensive gun uses number in the millions per year.
For the first time in six years, NFL goes a month without a player getting arrested.
Some leaked audio from a private fundraiser. Held, appropriately, at the house of a wealthy "prohibited person," a fellow convicted of selling cocaine.
"I'm going to speak out, I'm going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we're going to do whatever we can."
"And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get."
"Smith said according to multiple witnesses, the two men began arguing when Delpit punched the victim to the ground, and then continued to assault him. When bystanders tried to intervene, witnesses said the ATF agent pulled out a pistol and waved it at the crowd."
I attended, and spoke at, Second Amendment Foundation's GRPC, held in Phoenix this last weekend. The audio isn't up yet (the one online is the 2014 conference), but will eventually be accessible here or here.
Among the many good presentations were: John Lott of Crime Prevention Research Center, on the other side's statistical abuses, a panel from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and a panel of attorneys on "winning firearms freedom one case at a time."
Back in the 1930s, the Army experimented with semi auto versions of the Browning M-2, meant as portable tank-killers. Back then, armor was thin enough to be punctured by guns of this class (the Pazer I's armor ran from a quarter inch to a half inch), and the great weight even of a relatively light M2 could be handled by a cavalry horse. Soon, of course, tank armor got thick enough to make .50 attack useless (except, as one British source writes, to alert the tank's crew to the fact that someone was annoying them and motivate them to go looking for their tormentor).
Audio here. I found both sides a little hard to follow, but the judges who asked questions seemed inclined in a friendly direction.
Hillsdale involves as "as applied" challenge to the bar on firearms possession by those who have been involuntarily committed to an institution. The challenger was so committed, I gather 20-30 years ago, and is ready to present medical opinion that his mental problem is long gone. The 6th Circuit panel ruled in his favor, in an opinion that seemed unclear as to whether it was ruling "as applied" or on a "facial challenge," and the entire circuit took the case en banc.
"Standing to sue" is often a complex issue, and some courts use it as a "dump button" when faced with a case they don't like. The challenge is to the NY ban on "gravity knives," defined as any folding knife that opens by force of gravity or centrifugal force. The statute doesn't define how much centrifugal force, and in practice NYPD will cite or arrest for any folding knife that any officer can flip open in this way, or even for a knife that he cannot, if he speculates that someone stronger or faster might be able to do so.