Maybe we should just legalize bribery....
As it is, Congressional leaders have to buy votes by giving things to a legislator's district, which costs us far more than would a simple bribe. If, for example, the leadership needed a vote to pass health care legislation, I really doubt even a greedy senator would ask for $100,000,000.
Permits for toy guns
That's going to become a requirement in New South Wales.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Will the Chicago case lead to a constitutional reawakening?
That's the question asked in the Wall Street Journal Online.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (0)
Attempted hijack of Maesrk Alabama
This time, tho, the ship had armed guards who shot back, and the pirates quickly took several KIAs. Howard Nemerov notes, strangely, the NY Times plays down the rifles and the defense and sounds rather, well, pro-pirate.
7th Circuit questions ban on gun ownership by misdemeanor DV defendants
There's quite a discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy, regarding today's decision that calls into question the Lautenberg Amendment. The court concludes that the law should be given intermediate scrutiny (in part because the firearm was possessed for hunting rather than self-defense), vacates the conviction and sends that case back for more fact-finding. The wording certainly indicates that the court is taking the challenge seriously and wants the parties to do so as well. Opinion here.
Hat tip to readers Todd, and to Alice Beard.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (2)
Cory Maye gets a new trial!
Via Instapundit...
UPDATE: here's the opinion. Maye's attorney got a ruling transferring the case to another county, due to local bias. Then he discovered the second county was no better, and moved to have it returned. Instead the trial court moved the case to a third county. The appellate court noted there was a constitutional right to be tried in the county where the offense allegedly occurred, and so, upon Maye's retracting his request to be transferred elsewhere, it should have been returned to the county where the incident occurred, not sent to a third county.
NRA's Chicago brief
Pdf is here. Between this and Petitioner's brief, I think the ground is covered very well. Petitioner emphasizes incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause (which makes far more sense) and NRA emphasizes incorporation under the due process clause (which is simpler to do).
NRA files, not as an amicus, but as respondent in support of petitioner. In case you wonder what that is -- NRA also filed an appeal (a petition for cert.), but the Supreme Court took the SAF case and not the NRA one, which remains pending. The Clerk ruled that NRA, being a party to the other appeal, was entitled to file as if it were a party (meaning a longer brief, but deadline yesterday). It'd obviously be in support of the Petitioner. But custom is that anyone not a petitioner and not an amicus is a respondent. So they wound up as Respondent in Support of Petitioner).
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (6)
US v. Miller (1939)
I did some research in National Archives, into US v. Miller. If anyone wonders how the case wound up so messy... here are a pair of telegrams from Miller's attorney to the clerk of the Court, announced that he won't file a brief, nor argue. View image
Permalink · US v. Miller · Comments (16)
Opening brief in Chicago case
Pdf is here. Very, very, well-written.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (0)
NY case on destruction of guns
Pdf here. Plaintiff surrendered his guns to a sheriff, pursuant to a protection order entered in his divorce case. The sheriff destroyed them before the divorce case was over. The Court of Appeals held that he had a property interest in his firearms, the statute authorizing the sheriff to destroy unclaimed firearms after a year only applied to handguns, there was no qualified immunity since a reasonable LEO reading the statute would have known that. It also held that the sheriff's department (rather than just the person who destroyed the firearms) was open to suit since had an office policy allowing such illegal destruction.