Gunfire on Capitol Hill, or maybe not

Story is just breaking. Unclear what happened, and possibly nothing did, but they've sealed off the Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

AP picks up on New Orleans' return of guns

Here's the story.

BTW, as far as finding a gun was considered evidence in a crime, I had an experience a couple of years ago with an FFL whose inventory was seized by ATF -- for something that turned out not to be a violation of GCA at all.

ATF withheld seven guns because the NCIC check showed they were stolen. We asked for the NCIC reports. It turned out that five of the guns were reported as stolen, mostly at the other end of the country, months AFTER ATF had seized them and popped them in storage. The sixth was an NFA firearm which had been registered to the FFL twenty years before. What'd obviously happened was errors in recording the serial numbers of guns which were stolen. (We let them keep the seventh gun. He'd owned it for years, the report of theft was 20+ years old and the person reporting it was dead. Probably another error, but the gun was cheap and not worth arguing over). Six errors on an inventory of 300 guns would indicate a false positive rate of 2%. Probably the real rate is much higher since most of the inventory was new -- less time for a gun with a closely-related serial number to have been stolen and reported. I suspect the false positives on his inventory of used guns might have been around 10% or more.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

New Orleans gun returns

After months of delay, and even claims that they didn't have any seized guns, New Orleans has announced the gun returns will begin tommorow.

Continue reading "New Orleans gun returns"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

GoA webpage on New Orleans confiscations

Gun Owners of American has a webpage with great video of the New Orleans gun confiscations.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

DC official stands up for gun ownership

DC Taxicab Commissioner Sandra Seegars is standing up for gun ownership. It goes without saying that DC has decided not to renew her term.

Just verified -- she is the Seegars of the DC lawsuit!

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

We need to regulate cars as tightly as we regulate guns

The Charlotte Observer has a story regarding Mohammed Taheri-Aza, the guy who drove a car into the crowd of students in order to protest beliefs that Moslems are violent. (Yeah, he sure did a job of proving his point....)

He left a note: "I would instead use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at present, most likely due to my foreign nationality,"

(Hat tip to Dan Gifford).

Continue reading "We need to regulate cars as tightly as we regulate guns"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (6)

FLA bill on firearms in cars

The Brady Campaign is celebrating the tabling of a Florida bill that would allow firearms in locked cars on private property, but United Sportsmen of Florida is renewing its push (see extended remarks).

Continue reading "FLA bill on firearms in cars"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

New Orleans--latest twist

NRA reports that the mayor and city government have caved, and after denying that it seized any guns, the city admits that it did, and arrangements are being made for their return. Details on how to file a claim are in extended remarks.

Continue reading "New Orleans--latest twist"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

New Orleans gun seizures -- where some guns may have gone

A Grant Parish deputy has been charged with selling a seized firearm (albeit not one seized during Katrina).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Delaware CCW reform

CCW reform is heating up in Delaware. Not surprising, since both Sarah Brady and NRA 1st VP John Sigler live there.

(I find the former rather curious. NRA VP is an unpaid and quite parttime job -- so is NRA President. But Brady is supposed to be running their shop, and I assume getting paid for it. Dewey Beach, Del. looks to be about 120 miles by road from DC, making it a long commute at rush hour!

Ah--found their IRS form 990 for 2004. It lists Brady as chairman, averaging 40 hours per week and drawing $146,000 in pay and $5K in benefits (p. 12).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms

Major General Charles H. Jacoby Jr., the Commanding General of US Army Alaska, has forbidden troops under his command to carry concealed, even off duty and off base, in addition to otherwise restricting their right to arms. More details in extended entry below.

[Hat tip to Budd Schroeder and the Firearms Coalition.

Continue reading "Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (9)

Pro-gun bills in PA

Pro-gun legislators in PA have introduced two interesting bills.

One, by Rep. Metcalfe and Pippy, would require destruction of the state background checks after they are passed -- as it is, police are apparently keeping the records. The other, by Rep. Cappelli, would adopt the "castle doctrine," removing the retreat requirement before self-defense (it's hard to tell from the article just how this modifies current PA law -- article refers to protecting homeowners, but at common law the retreat requirement didn't apply in one's own home, as I recall).

Here's another report, referring to Rep. Cappelli and two other unnamed lawmakers.

[Hat tip to Kathy Habel]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Letter to the editor

The Fredericksburg (VA) Lance-Star has an Op-Ed by Dennis Hannick responding to an earlier collective-rights piece. They have an amusing layout of it -- here's the image.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Ohio legislation

The Ohio house has passed pro-gun legislation, but the governor is threatening a veto.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Right to bear arms in Maryland

Via the Bitch Girls: the Maryland legislature is debating a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to arms for self-defense and recreation. The present Maryland constitution has no right to arms provision.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Update on Washington open carry law

Via Publicola: here's a blog entry by a fellow who beat a local Washington state prosecution. It sounds as if he was charged, not under the state law, but under a local replica of it, and the court held that was ruled out by the state pre-emption statute.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Hilarious pro-gun ad

Right here. Caveat: fairly big wmv medial file, but unless you have dialup, well worth it.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Poll of Nat'l Ass'n of Chiefs of Police

The National Association of Chiefs of Police have released their 2006 poll of 14,000 members. Remember this is a poll of chiefs of police, who historically have been less pro-gun than the officers on the beat.

92 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun ownership for self-defense or sport.

Ninety-five percent believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

When asked if they opposed citizens obtaining concealed weapons permits, only 40 percent said yes.

[Hat tip to Bill Bailey]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Washington open carry ban

Clayton Cramer has a post on the origins of a Washington state law that makes it illegal to openly carry in cities "under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." Apparently it was enacted in 1969 out of fear that the Black Panthers were going to come to the capitol while armed. They didn't, but the law remains.

Personally, I think it's probably void for vagueness. I can see the intent to intimidate part as proper, but "warrants alarm for the safety" is not a very clear guideline. If a legislature, dropping the arms part, were to outlaw "any conduct or behavior that warrants alarm for the safety of another," I suspect it'd go down in flames under the void for vagueness doctrine. Warrants in whose eyes? Just what is "alarm"? It doesn't forbid conduct that *does* cause alarm, but conduct that "warrants" such, so that a person could be charged even if nobody got alarmed.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Motion for contempt in New Orleans case

NRA and SAF have filed a motion to hold the New Orleans mayor in contempt of court. The ground is that New Orleans has refused to return seized guns, in defiance of the court's injunction. Indeed, it appears to arguing that it doesn't have any guns because it didn't seize any, even though some of the confiscations were videotaped.

[Hat tip to Bruce Stern]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Interesting events in Illinois

Some Illinois lawmakers want an "assault weapon" ban -- and certain manufacturers located in the state, e.g., Springfield Armory, Armalite, Les Baer Custom and Rock River Arms Inc -- say they'll pull out of the state if it passes. The Pantagraph has the story.

[Update: if they want a gun-friendly state, they ought to consider Arizona. You can carry a holstered gun in your glove compartment, without a CCW permit. I used to do that, and was stopped twice for traffic violations. I did the polite thing and told the officer before reaching for my registration. One of them asked my opinion on my .45, since he was thinking about buying one. The other told me how easy it was to get a CCW permit "and then you can carry *anywhere* concealed!"]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Armed journalists in Iraq

Opinio Juris has a posting on journalists applying for gun permits in Iraq (sounds like a plan to me!) and disputing the International News Safety Institute's claim that packing in self-defense might lose them Geneva Convention protections. (The protective value of which lies in ... oh, having the INSI issue an open letter condemning your decapitation).

[via Gene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Indiana legislation

Lots of pro-gun legislative activity in Indiana.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

More on Cheney hunting accident

Egad--as further proof of how slow the news is, Drudge reports that the mainstream media plans a full court press next week on the Cheney hunting accident. It'll be the cover story for both Time and Newsweek, no less. UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has an article in the Guardian on this, commenting on the media's instinct for the capillary.

In the meantime, here's a webpage that replicates the shot patterns and concludes the accident happened as was reported -- the shot spread would be typical of 30 yards or so and not of any closer distance.

That matches my observation -- but is probably beyond the MSM, which at various times described Cheney as shooting "buckshot," the victim as being hit by 200 pellets, etc., etc.

[Hat tip to Eric Bezhoff]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Gallup poll on gun ownership

The most recent Gallup Poll shows some interesting results:

As might be expected, Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats. 55 vs. 32% (for ownership by anyone in the household). As to reasons for owning, GOP were more likely to name hunting and target shooting than Demos (I'd guess the Demos are disproportionately urban, where self-protection is a more likely purpose than hunting or plinking).

Percent of households owning guns is up over the last decade. It's about 40% vs. 33% in 1999. (On the other hand, 1999 showed a low figure compared to previous polls, so it's possible that gun ownership then dipped, or that the poll data that year was atypical).

Here's John Lott on a 2005 poll. Amusing results: asked if arming pilots would make aircraft safer, the response was 2:1 yes. Asked if arming judges would make courthouses safer, the response was majority, no. I suppose that says something about the popular perception of judges!

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (5)

Hunting risks

Prof. Volokh has a posting on risks of hunting compared to those of other sports. Interesting figures (nationwide, swimming results in about 15x as many accidental fatalities as hunting, and boating about 9x as many. In Colorado, fishing results in as many fatalities as hunting).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

House hearings on ATFE conduct at Richmond Gun Shows

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has the story. Hearings will resume with ATFE testimony on Feb. 28.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

More gun confiscations in Louisiana

Over at the Liberty Zone, Nicki reports a new (Jan. 28) case of firearms seizures in Louisiana. This one was in the town of Gonzales, and when the person protested that there was no law against open carry, he was told "tell it to the judge." The prosecutor wisely dropped the charges.

Sounds like a 1983 suit to me.... (Hat tip to Publicola)

UPDATE: Sounds like it wasn't his first, er, negative encounter with law enforcement. More here. No guarantee it's the same person, but it is the same name and locale.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (7)

Don Kates' observation on gun accidents

From an email from the prolific Don K.:

My many decades of conversations with laypersons on this subject show that the general populace has (largely because of mendacious propaganda) an almost comical misunderstanding of the subject. Common misperceptions include: (1) that gun accidents take thousands of lives each year; (2) that the number of fatal gun accident deaths (FGAs) is growing rather than rapidly shrinking; (3) that large numbers of infants and small children die in gun accidents; and (4) that the number of gun accidents grows with increasing numbers of guns.

The facts are:

[1), (2) and (4)] in 1967 there were slightly over 97 million civilian guns in the nation – and FGAs took over 2,700 lives. As of today when there are over 280 million guns civilian guns FGAs have shrunk to c. 770 per year. By way of comparison, falls, fires and drownings each take over 5,000 lives per year.

(3) The number of children, especially small children, killed in gun accidents is minuscule – though when it happens any such death receives nationwide publicity.

Post-natal mothers are commonly advised to take iron supplements. On average, nationwide 5-10 infants under age 2 die each year from swallowing iron pills (which look like candy).. In contrast, on average, each year 0-2 children of that age die in gun accidents. (An average of 36 children age 2 and younger die from consuming common household poisons of all type.)

On average, nationwide, four times as many children under age six die of accidental poisoning as in gun accidents. Likewise four times as many such children die in fires caused by their playing with cigarette lighters as in gun accidents. 20 times as many such children drown in bathtubs and home swimming pools as in gun accidents.

As to teenagers, on average 135-140 die in firearms accidents each year compared to the 5,700-6,000 teenagers who die in motor vehicle accidents.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Winchester closing doors in New Haven

Winchester is closing down its plant in New Haven, CN. Winchester brand firearms are made by US Repeating Arms Co., which states it will continue their production overseas (to complicate matters, the brand name is owned by Olin).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (5)

State legislative updates

If you're in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, Hawaii, Illinois or Nebraska, check the ILA legislation pending webpage.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Thought for the day

Here's a webpage on existing judicial vacancies.

It'd be fun if some progun organizations were to start to push good, solidly qualified candidates for those posts. There's two openings in the DC Circuit and one on the 4th Circuit (Richmond). Hmm... Prof. Bob Cottrol and Prof. Nelson Lund and Dean Polsby could split those. Two in the 3d Circuit (Philadelphia, I think) ... Prof. Nick Johnson. One in the 5th Circuit -- the trial judge in Emerson might do nicely.

I can't vouch for the last, but all of the others would be very, very, hard to oppose. Any one of them knows more about constitutional law, or any other form of law, than does the entire Judiciary Committee (both parties included, I might add).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

News from Virginia

Word from Virginia Civil Defense League that two pro-gun bills passed the VA House. The first, which prohibits businesses from enforcing rules against firearms in locked, parked, cars, passed by 74-22 . The second, which prevents emergency powers being used to disarm, passed unanimously.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Repealing gun laws to attract Cabella's

The Chicago suburb of Hoffman Estates is repealing its local gun law, with the apparent motivation of attracting a big Cabella's outlet.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Going postal in gun free zones

Donald May has a Townhall column by that title. [Hat tip to Dan Gifford].

Interesting question: mass killers often are driven by rage at "the system," the status quo, and are sometimes supposedly impossible to stop because they desire their own death.

Strange that they have never targetted, oh, a gun show or police station.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Texas ACLU supports firearm rights

The pro-gun Texas ACLU strikes again!

[Hat tip to Dab Gifford]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Kates & Kopel -- new articles

Don Kates and David Kopel have articles in the current issue of Bridges: An Interdisciplinary Journal. I've posted the text (sans footnotes) of Don's article in the extended remarks below. Dave's article, "The Scottish and English Religious Roots of the American Right to Arms," is available in pdf on his website.

Continue reading "Kates & Kopel -- new articles"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Virginia progun measures advance

The Virginia Citizen's Defense League is reporting a number of pro-gun results in the Virginia legislature, at the subcommittee level. The Militia, Police and Public Safety subcommittee killed Rep. Watts' bill to extend gun show requirements to just about every gathering at which a gun is sold, and passsed measure to allow judges to delegate CCW issuing authority, define "personal knowledge" which can be used to refuse a permit, to make VA permits reciprocal with all other states,
Today the subcommittee votes on a bill to allow firearms in parked cars (if locked)--I assume that's like the proposed FLA legislation, that forbids a business to bar them -- and to prevent use of emergency powers to disarm citizens, as was done in New Orleans.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Mysterious story

The NY Post is reporting that the NRA blocked appointment of NY Mayor Bloomberg's girlfriend to head the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

This sounds very, very, strange. I doubt NRA would know he had a girlfriend, let alone that she was applying for a federal appointment, let alone try to block it in vengence. And the FDIC is not exactly an area where they'd have much clout. Nor the White House Personnel office (just try blocking an appointment that a powerful patron wants!).

The story admits that NRA HQ said it knows nothing of any such event. And it cites nobody as the source of the story (except an unnamed Senate aide, who says it was "obvious" that NRA did it), and can't name anyone as having blocked the nomination (except to say that "Any" of NRA's Senate allies "could have" placed a hold on it).

[Thanks to Budd Schroeder for the link]

Continue reading "Mysterious story"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

People who need sense knocked into them

"After her 11-year-old son was suspended for twice bringing a loaded handgun to school, Linnea C. Holdren, 43, said the matter was pretty much beyond her control. "I can't lock up his guns," she told police. "They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them." (The boy was expelled in January, and Holdren, who is a teacher at her son's Shickshinny, Pa., elementary school, has been charged with felony endangerment.)"

Courtesy of News of the Weird. Other news reports note that her statement to police came after they offered to give her a trigger lock.

Let's get one thing straight, teach:: Dr. Spock was NOT cut out to be a firearms safety instructor.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Alito confirmed

It's now Justice Alito. Vote was 58-42. Schumer is complaining that he wishes the nominee were a "uniter" rather than a "divider," although it's hard to see how a Supreme Court Justice can be either.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Kerry on Alito filibuster

In the opening move of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, John Kerry announced (on Kos) that he supported a filibuster of the Alito confirmation, which he argues will mark a "radical ideological shift" in the Supreme Court. Here's another article on his call.

Kerry's statement that Alito was nominated because "Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet Miers--a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked--President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands," puts me in mind of the remark that all the Left had to do to keep Alito off the Court, 100% certain, was to endorse Miers. Instead -- how many times did we hear (and with justice) the term "cronyism" invoked?

The comments on Kos are interesting, too. If the intent was to position Kerry for an appeal to the Left, without actually having to risk a fillibuster, it may not work out as planned. Kos's readers are pumped up on the idea. On the other hand, the idea may be to make a gesture, accept a quick cloture vote to end the fillibuster, and roll over. Kerry gets publicity and appeal to the Left, the Demo senators looking at re-election in Bush-leaning states get to vote against the filibuster and seem more conservative, and both go away happy.

[UPDATE: the question was how Hilary Clinton would go. Back Kerry in an appeal to the Left (at the cost of appearing to follow your likely rival) or oppose as part of her moves to try to sound less Left. She's chosen the former.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Arizona bill modelled on Florida Self-Defense statute

The Arizona Senate is proposing self-defense legislation modeled on that of Florida. Different bills would either (a) establish "no retreat" or (b) put the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense when it is alleged. Prosecutors are objecting, of course.

(I'm not sure either marks a major change in the law. On the first, present Ariz. law simply requires that the force used be "reasonably necessary." Earlier caselaw had refused to impose a retreat requirement. On the other hand, I suppose it's open to argue that availability of retreat made force not "reasonably necessary," thus bringing it in by the back door. With the other, if I remember correctly, the defendant has the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (it's more likely than not to have been the case), whereupon the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Google China's censorship and the right to arms

I can't say if this is significant, but--

If you Google "right to arms" on standard Google, you get over 37,000 hits. The first page has eight references to the Second Amendment, seven of them supporting an individual right. The lead relevant article is Glenn Reynold's argument that arms ownership ought to be the next international right. Second page has nine results relevant to an individual right.

Google the same phrase on Google.cn and you get all of 13 hits. About half relate to coats of arms, and the remainder are citations to Uviller's anti-individual right book.

I tried "freedom of speech" on google.cn and curiously got nearly five million hits.

[UPDATE: commenters have tried the same, and gotten tens of thousands of hits. A few hours ago, I tried "right to arms" again (with quotation marks in), and got about 3,500. Then after the first comment, a few hours ago,

I tried that again, and got 35,200. (I know, because I've got two computers here, and left the other one running). I just tried it now and got 37,100.

So I tried "freedom of speech," which some hours ago got just under five million. Right now it's under six million -- 5,860,0000. Maybe it's a new system, and the search engines are adding to it?]

Ah, here is the entry on the "history" pulldown of my browser. The enitirty of the search (12 rather than 13 hits by my count) is given in the extended entry.

Continue reading "Google China's censorship and the right to arms"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Seegers v. Gonzales cert denial

The Supreme Court has denied cert. (declined to take the case) of Seegers v. Gonzales. That was one of two challenges to the DC handgun ban, and the DC Circuit upheld a dismissal for lack of standing (i.e., no right to sue to challenge a statute, absent prosecution under it).

The other challenge, Parker v. DC, remains pending in the DC Circuit.

[Update: Alan Gura, counsel for the Parker plaintiffs, writes:

We're currently awaiting a scheduling order in Parker. Recall that we made a much better record on standing.

The appellees' attempts to dismiss the Parker appeal on standing grounds was denied by the D.C. Circuit in November. While standing remains an issue in the case, the court has also sought briefing on the merits.

Stay tuned.]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Sen. Judiciary Comm. passes Alito; floor debate tommorrow

On a straight party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Judge Alito's confirmation. Senate floor debate should begin tommorrow, with vote (absent filibuster) by end of week.

I wonder if the opposition will renew its interesting pair of arguments: (1) Alito doesn't have enough respect for individual liberty and (2) he should defer more to Congress... when it restricts individual liberties.

[UPDATE: the NY Times is calling for a fillibuster, admitting that it would fail, and probably hurt the Democrats, but arguing that Alito's confirmation would be even worse.]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Brady Campaign active in Washington State

A Brady Campaign press release says that Washington's Senate Judiciary Comm. will hold hearings Tuesday at 3:30 PM on a law to require background checks for gunshow purchases from non-dealers.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Interesting events in Wisconsin

In 1998, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that "the people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

Five years later, in State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis.2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003) [text is in extended remarks below], the state Supreme Court applied it to a CCW charge. Defendant Hamdan was a store owner in a very high-crime area (he'd already been on the receiving end of four robberies), and kept a pistol under the counter. At closing time, he took it into a back room for storage, and at that precise moment officers arrived for a business license check. He popped it into his pocket and came out, and when the officers asked if there was a gun in the store (they later testified that the majority of businesses in the area had one for protection) he said yes and produced it.

He was charged with CCW (Wisconsin caselaw is so broad that "carrying" concealed includes merely having a firearm concealed within reach) and convicted at a trial in which he was not allowed to introduce evidence of his self-defense motives, of crime in and around the store, etc. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the conviction, pointing to the constitutional provision, and the fact that he was on his own property at the time:

"Considering the diminished public interest in applying the CCW statute in the context of Hamdan's conduct, we hold that the State's police power must yield in this case to Hamdan's reasonable exercise of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security. This right, when exercised within one's own business and supported by a factual determination that no unlawful purpose motivated concealment of the weapon, will usually provide a constitutional defense to a person who is charged with violating the CCW statute. Because Hamdan was not permitted to assert this defense, his challenge to the CCW statute was not fully addressed by the circuit court and his conviction under Wis. Stat. § 941.23 was not proper."

The court also noted that the standard rationales for CCW laws (avoid risk of rash violence, put others on notice that a person is armed so they won't start a fight with him, etc) were inapplicable, or only marginally applicable, to a small business owner trying to protect himself. Indeed, putting criminals on notice that the owner is armed and just where the arm is would only give the criminals the advantage. It also noted that the constitutional protection relates to "security," which it said was broader than "self-defense" -- acting in self-defense implies avoiding an immediate threat, whereas being "secure" suggests a general feeling of protection in the long term.

The one problem was that the challenge was as-applied, on the facts. So it didn't lay out a standard of "you can carry concealed on your own property" but rather if you are charged with CCW under those facts, you can argue to the jury that you had lawful needs to carry, and that open carry was not feasible. The court strongly suggested that the Legislature revisit the law to clear things up.

Wisconsin legislators are now pushing the Personal Protection Act, which provides for CCW licenses. Last session, they passed another bill, SB 214, but it was vetoed. Here's an analysis of the present bill.

Continue reading "Interesting events in Wisconsin"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Stolen guns

Criminals use stolen guns (surprise!). So how can antigunners get political capital out of that? Push laws that will punish the theft victim if they fail to report the theft.

Why wouldn't someone report a theft? Well, they'd have a little incentive if anyone cared. Twenty or so years ago I had a pistol stolen from the glove compartment in my VW bug. I called in a report, and it was noted. I pointed out that the glove compartment door was glossy metal, would probably hold great fingerprints. Dust it, get my prints and deduct those, and you have those of the thief. The police said they didn't have enough time. I offered to drive to the central police station and park in their lot, so the fingerprint tech had only to come outside and dust. Naw, they said, the fingerprints will already have "evaporated." Yeah, sure, they evaporate. I gave up.

I'm told that shipments to dealers are often stolen in transit (which screws up recordkeeping and tracing, BTW). So why not crack down? Dealers and gunowners would love it. Shouldn't be too hard to compute out the distribution nodes where guns vanish. Or to park a few radio locators in, say, the buttstock of military-type rifles. Of course that doesn't lead to more legislation -- just to solving the problem.

[UPDATE, response to comment: it was a fingerprint tech with Tucson Police Department who told me the fingerprints would have evaporated (by the next morning, incidentally). It was a pretty clear brush-off. A year or so later I had an attempted breakin, where someone had tried to jimmy open a window. I figured they'd probably left some prints on the glass, but again couldn't convince anyone to dust for them -- they said they'd file the report and that was all they could do. To be fair, in that case I couldn't take the window down to the police station. But I'd have thought a stolen gun was cause enough to dust a car sitting in the police station parking lot!]

ANOTHER UPDATE: Naw, not much odds of civil liability here. Courts have gone against holding law enforcement liable for failure to prevent crime, on the basis that then law enforcement agencies would be liable to countless lawsuits. (I can see that, although in severe cases, such as Warren v. DC -- where a 911 dispatcher promised women that help was on the way, and then didn't even send out a radio report, with result they were subjected to 14 hours of rape and abuse -- you might think they'd recognize an exception).
I played a role in initiating the first successful suit against a parole board that let loose a dangerous guy -- gad, now I forget the case, but it concerned a murderous psychotic who had five psychiatrists opine that he was dangerous, and the parole board, composed of political hacks, let him out anyway, and he went on to commit a few murders in the Brown Fox Tavern. I think his name was Mitchell Blazak, something like that. I was a young pup law student clerking for a firm here, back in 1973 or 74, and got a memo on the case. The attorney wanted to sue the tavern owner for not giving in to the robber's demand, and I thought there was no case there -- no duty to yield to a criminal demand. But the robber's name stood out, and I realized I'd just seen an opinion from a State court upholding his conviction for attempted murder. Pulled out the opinion -- his conviction had been affirmed only a few months before the later robbery -- what gives here? Investigated, and argued to the attorney that there might be a case against the parole board for turning him loose. He went with it, it went to the Ariz. Supreme Court, and they held the parole board might be liable if gross negligence could be proven.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Virginia bill to control any "firearms show"

Virginia Rep. Vivian Watts has introduced House Bill No. 1447.

Existing Virginia law requires the promoter of a "firearms show" to give 30 days' notice to police. "Firearms show" is defined as an exhibition, not on a dealer's premises, conducted "principally" for purposes of showing and selling firearms. HB 1447 would change that to include any gathering of two or more people " in which one of the purposes" is selling firearms. Presumably this is directed at swap meets, although it would also include a yard sale. In fact, it might include any gun sale (since two people have to gather in order to sell anything). The bill would also expand the definition of "promoter" to include not only the person setting up the show, but anyone "inviting others to participate in a firearms show or advertising a firearms show in the Commonwealth."

[Chuckle--when I worked at Interior, Ms. Watt's husband, David, was in our division. And Sen. Carl Levin's wife Barbara was in it, too.]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Nebraska online poll

A Nebraska newspaper is running an online poll on "Should the Legislature pass a law allowing concealed weapons?" From that description, it's hard to judge just what is being proposed (or even whether this is a proposal pending). Whatever it is, the ayes are scoring at 93% just now.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Alito's a shooter

At least he pops clay pigeons. (Via The Bitch Girls),

Also from TBGs--Illinois has a paperwork tie up that's preventing processsing Firearm Owner ID cards (i.e., gun possession permits) before their renewal date. Possession of a gun without the permit is a felony. Altho the lack of permits is the government's fault, the most they're saying is that law enforcement will have discretion whether to arrest.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Sideline on Ted Kennedy on Alito

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki suggests that Kennedy's questioning of Alito regarding Concerned Alumni of Princeton resembles McCarthy's attempts at guilt by association.

There's another parallel. Kennedy argues the committee must subpoena the papers of William Rusher, who was prominent in the group, from the Library of Congress:

"And I asked Senator Specter make a formal committee request for the documents in the possession of the Library of Congress as part of the William Rusher papers. Mr. Rusher was the publisher of the National Review, was an active founder and leader of CAP.

Do you have any hesitancy or reason for us not to look at those documents?"

Kennedy then gets into an argument with Chairman Spector over whether he can get a committee vote to issue the subpoena, "my request is that we go into the executive session for the sole purpose of voting on a subpoena for these records that are held over at the Library of Congress — that purpose and that purpose only.

And if I’m going to be denied that, I’d want to give notice to the chair that you’re going to hear it again and again and again and we’re going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution."

Later: "I wonder what these papers contain, and what the Republicans do not want us to see. Why they want to just, uh, rush this nominee through.”

Nice bit of grandstanding. A five minute Google search turned up the index to the William Rusher Papers at the Library of Congress. The index notes things like "The microfilm in these papers was produced by the office of the National
Review and is included in the collection as its own series. It is available for research use in the Manuscript Reading Room." There's also over two hundred boxes of hardcopy.

The only restrictions I can find on access pertain to his personal diaries, which cannot be released until 50 yrs after his death.

So it looks as if Senator Kennedy need only walk across the street to the LoC and take a look.

[UPDATE: I guess they figured it out. Bench Memosis reporting that Senate Judiciary Committee staffers reviewed the relevant portion of the Rusher papers at the LoC and found not even a mention of Alito, and that the New York Times reviewed them two months ago and couldn't find anything either. Not much basis for Kennedy's grandstanding over needing a subpoena to get at those secret files].

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Are remarks about an attorney's oral argument actionable?

While doing a bit of research, I came across an unusual, and rather humorous in retrospect, 7th Circuit opinion.

Facts: back in the early 80s, a suit was brought challenging a city ban on gun dealerships, alleging various grounds including the Second Amendment. It ultimately made its way to the 7th Circuit, which (as would have been expected a quarter century ago) ruled against plaintiffs.

Following it, the Second Amendment Foundation's publication had an article stating that three attorneys were to argue in the Circuit, court had allowed 30 minutes for argument per side, and the agreement was that the first was to use not more than 6 minutes. Unfortunately, the article continued, he had used 13 minutes, throwing the timekeeping into disarray, and was rambling and often pointless.

The first attorney sued for defamation, seeking $5 million in actuals and $10 million in punitives. Okay.... As might be expected, he lost.

This is the first time I've come across an attorney suing over a description of his oral argument, and arguing the case in the same court in which the argument was delivered. (Tactical tip for those who haven't been in the appellate trenches: a three-way division of time, let alone of a mere 30 minutes of time, does require almost superhuman time discipline on the part of the first two speakers -- and leaves you open to judges on the other side trying to tie up the first two with questions in order to throw the third advocate off).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Wrap of gun issues in Congress, 2005

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has a wrapup of 2005 Congressional issues relating to firearms. As might be expected, it was a very good year.

One comment is worthy of note. Dave listed repeal of the DC handgun ban as a hope for 2006, and attorney Alan Gura commented:

"I would hope that "repeal of the D.C. ban on handgun possession and on possession of long guns in a condition usable for home defense" will not be necessary, as these laws should be struck down in Parker v. District of Columbia, D.C. Circuit No. 04-7041. I look forward to arguing the case on the merits sometime in the coming year. http://www.gurapossessky.com/newsandresources.htm"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

New blog with second amendment commentary

Via the Volokh Conspiracy:

David Friedman, a liberarian writer, has a new blog.

He's posted an approach to the Second Amendment which is interesting, although I suspect only persuasive to libertarians (who don't need converting on the right to arms).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Might be one heck of an insanity defense case...

A ... well, I'd be tempted to call it a rather very small scale terrorist attack in Chandler, Arizona. I suppose it's a little more like an interesting hypothetical for an insanity defense. Guy crashes car into a Home Depot, drives thru the inside until he smashes the paint department, sets the paint department afire, and then waits for arrest.

Motivation was (a) to get even for a lack of promotion; (b) to protest proposals for a fence along the border with Mexico and (c) to make the US more free. Along the way he locked his dog in the trunk with his Quran since he wanted to show it to the dog. But the dog, being an unclean beast, was upset at being confined with a holy book.

Home Depot in the area says if he is released, they'll post armed guards. It might be easier to let some employees pack. And hand them dart guns with antipsychotics as the first line of defense.

Thanks to Landis Aden for the tip....

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

MTV movie on guns today

CNS News reports that MTV is airing a documentary on guns today, to feature a convicted felon, a gang member, a crime victim who advocates self-defense, and a hunter. And that GOA and SAF have pointed out that (given that the proportion of criminal use is in the tenths of a percent) giving 50% of the time to criminal users is hardly proportionate to reality.

[UPDATE: read the trackback]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

San Fran backs down a bit

According to this report, San Francisco has agreed to postpone enforcing the Proposition H prohibition on gun and ammo sales until March 1. The NRA-backed suit challenging it is set for hearing in mid-February.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Canada's proposed gun ban raises gun sales

According to the Globe and Mail, the proposal to ban handguns in Canada has led to a great increase in handgun sales. (The same thing happened here in the US just before the Brady Act and the "assault weapons" ban).

""People are saying, 'Piss off a Liberal: buy a handgun,' " said Len Kucey, owner of Phoenix Indoor Range and Gun Shop in Edmonton, who has also seen a boost in sales."

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

The Second Amendments (band)

Via Cam Edwards: a country band known as the Second Amendments will be touring with the troops in Iraq. It's composed of five congressmen who -- no surprise -- are all pro-gun

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

USA 3000 Airline bans guns in baggage

From Don Causeu of The Hunting Report, via Todd Rathner:

USA 3000 Airlines, has changed its baggage policies to prohibit passengers from transporting any firearms or ammunition as checked baggage. That’s right – any kind of firearms or ammunition.

We learned of the shift in policy from subscriber Rob Hoskins, who tells us he spent some time arguing with a company representative via e-mail about the wisdom of such a move. We haven’t done the same, but we have confirmed with the company that it has imposed a blanket ban on the transport of firearms as checked baggage. That’s enough for us to call for a boycott of their services until the company changes its mind. We are going to make sure the NRA knows of this, and perhaps they will join the crusade.

In case you haven’t heard of USA 3000, it operates from cities in the Northeast and Midwest to Florida, The Dominican Republic and Mexico. The company also operates many charter flights to the Caribbean and other Mexican cities in conjunction with a tour operator named Apple Vacations.

To contact them: 1-888-479-3001, or send e-mail to customerdesk@usa3000airlines.com.

UPDATE: a reader reported that the email address doesn't work. Their contact us page shows "CUSTOMER SERVICE
1-888-479-3001 Call us if you wish to share an experience with us, or send e-mail to customerdesk@usa3000airlines.com, a letter to the address below Attn: Customer Services." Perhaps the message bounces back unless the subject line is "Atten: Consumer Services"?

Their Restricted Items page indicates:

"Before you pack your checked or carry-on luggage please see the list of restricted items below. You may not realize common everyday items that may be classified as dangerous goods which are restricted for transport by USA3000 Airlines:

Oxygen Needs: USA3000 does not carry passengers who are Oxygen dependent while in-flight.

Fireworks: Signal flares, sparklers or other explosives ...

Flammable Liquids or Solids: Fuel, paints, lighter refills, matches ...
......

Weapons: Firearms, Ammunition, gunpowder, mace, tear-gas, or pepper spray ..."

Now, it's not 100% clear whether that's warning that these items are restricted, but not totally verbotten -- obviously, you can't put a .45 and two clips in your carryon without attracting a lot of attention from TSA. At the end is "Firearms and Ammunition may not be carried by a passenger on USA3000 Airlines," but once again, what does "carry" mean?

A quick Google turned up 2004 report of the airline refusing to carry a trap shooter's shotgun in baggage: "The airline, based in Newtown Square, Delaware County, decided not to carry firearms as it focused on its primary business of transporting leisure travelers to sunny destinations, Spokesman Trevor Sadler said. The company, started more than two years ago with two planes, now has a fleet of 10. "We made a conscious decision to not do that at this time," Sadler said, adding that the policy is under review. He couldn't say if or when it might change."]

Continue reading "USA 3000 Airline bans guns in baggage"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (5)

U of Arizona moving to terminate shooting programs

My alma mater, U of Arizona, is moving to terminate its marksmanship program. I don't know exactly how far it dates back, but know it had been around for some time before I attended (some 36 years ago). Click on the above link to get addresses and emails of people to contact. [Hat tip to Herb Chambers on this].

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Article on Boston gun law enforcement

From the Boston Herald comes an interesting article on enforcement of their gun laws. It begins by sounding like a call for still more (i.e., the mandatory one year sentence only applies if the person carries outside the house without a permit) but ends with the argument that authorities are not enforcing the existing laws -- e.g., since possession of an illegal gun in the home is "only" subject to a max of two years imprisonment, they often don't bother charging it or seeking the two years, even in major drug cases.

(I thought the case they cited at the outset rather strange ... three guys caught with two kilos of coke and a full auto AK-47, and the article says the only gun charge could be a two year misdemeanor (they have them in some states). Assuming the state law says nothing about full auto (and this being Massachusetts, that's hard to believe), they'd have only to turn him over to the feds. The federal penalty for unlicensed full auto is up to ten years).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

More on NY

All of which makes me glad I live 2,000 miles away... As noted previously, Gov. Pataki has called a special session of the legislature to pass more gun restrictions.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has proclaimed that Pataki and the state senate are actually in the pocket of the NRA and are not going to go far enough in further restricting gun ownership. Brady Campaign has endorsed Silver's approach.

On the other hand, Republicans are saying that Silver is actually out to derail the special session, loading up the bills with extra stuff in order to generate the appearance of "doing something" about crime.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Pataki calls special session to vote on gun laws

NY Governor Pataki has called a special session of the legislature to consider making NY's gun laws even stricter, and to allow the death penalty for cop killers.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

New approach to a newsblog

One of the readers has pioneered a new approach to newsblogging.

With blogs as with MSM, there is an editorial function -- someone has to decide what gets included, and whether it's treated as headline or minor materials. At News Bump readers take on the latter editorial function -- if a story seems important, click on a button to bump it up. The first news set out is thus the story that readers thought the most important (combined with a function for newness, so a very popular older report does not sit at the head of the list forever). Rankings change about every half hour.

Readers who sign up can also submit news reports, which other readers can then bump up if they are interesting.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Knife control

Cam Edwards notes new proposals for big-city knife control. It's hardly a new idea: in the 1850-1880 period, several states passed laws against bowie knives and "Arkansas Toothpicks." [UPDATE: Clayton Cramer emails me that "Actually, the big burst of laws aimed at Bowie knives and Arkansas toothpicks is earlier than 1850. My book Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic examines this in detail. Alabama's law from 1837 prohibited carrying, and imposed a $100 transfer tax. Georgia's 1837 banned sale of Bowie knives and concealable handguns. Tennessee's 1838 law banned carrying and sale of Bowie knives and Arkansas toothpicks. Arkansas's 1838 banned carrying "any pistol, dirk, butcher or large knife." My book examines the manner in which these laws suddenly became popular--there's some strong similarity to the assault weapon panic of 1989-90, and for the same reason--popular press started making a big deal about how deadly and evil they were--and demand skyrocketed, because LOTS of people now wanted one."]

Continue reading "Knife control"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

San Fran struggles to cope with gun ban

In the San Fran Chron Watch there appears a humorous piece on the gun ban.

"Gang members were lined up for several blocks outside of a San Francisco police station in order to turn over their guns. "It's the right thing to do, yo," said a gangbanger known as Fizzle. "... I stole this .45 two years ago, and now I have to give it to the police. It just ain't right.""

[Thanks to Dan Gifford]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Illustration of responsibility of firearm owners

A while back, I mention Clayton Cramer's discussion of how gun owners were likely to be too responsible rather than too triggerhappy (in the context of a CCW permit holder who had a shot at the Tacoma Mall shooter but was reluctant to take it).

This morning's Arizona Daily Star has a local story along the same lines, showing what must approach superhuman restraint.

A fellow stole a shotgun from Frontier Guns, ran out with it and dove into his car. The store owner pursued, pistol in hand. The thief drove the car into him and the owner wound up on the hood, holding the gun pointing at him thru the windshield as the car pulled into traffic. Eventually he got dumped into the street, and police tracked down the thief.

"The armed owner of the gun shop chased after him, but Lange tried to run down the store owner with his car, he said. The store owner got on the hood, holding on with one hand and pointing a gun through the windshield with the other, witnesses told police.

Lange swerved onto East Grant Road, dropping the owner into the street and pulling out in front of traffic, witnesses told police. The owner, face bloodied, walked back to his shop as Lange sped off.
Police said one of the witnesses followed Lange.

Officers caught up with Lange at his home a few blocks away ...."

I dunno if the shop owner was loathe to fire because he didn't want to kill a guy over a matter of property theft, or because the store is on a heavily-travelled street where misses and ricochets would be especially dangerous. Whatever it was, holding fire while the guy tries to run you over and then exits with you on the hood does seem like truly exceptional restraint. Note also that a witness -- probably a gun store customer -- reacted, not with a Rambo routine, but by following the guy's car until he stopped, and then bringing in the police.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Police agencies questioning "always armed" policy

AP is reporting that some LE agencies are questioning the standard "always armed" policy -- because their officers have an unfortunate tendency to shoot armed, off duty, officers who are trying to prevent crime.

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police has called ``always on duty'' policies a costly tradition. The group, which has more than 20,000 members, recommends that off-duty officers who witness a crime call for assistance rather than pulling a weapon."

At least the International is consistent, given its general attitudes toward gun ownership. But you'd think the solution would be reducing the chances of mistaken shooting of an armed person trying to prevent crime, rather than disarming the officers.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Petition to amend gun ban in Federal parks

The Virginia Citizens Defense League has petitioned Dept of Interior to amend its regulations relating to National Parks, which presently forbid close to all carrying of a weapon. Since it's a bit hard to deal with a grizzly barehanded, there is quite a good case to be made. As the petition notes, the Park Service itself has a publication on the ten most dangerous national parks...
(If you follow the links, you can see that the re-enactment of the Siege of Yorktown had to be moved off the battlefield, which is a park, because ... uh .... the ban applies to muskets and bayonets, too).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

TSA allows some sharp objects

CNN reports that TSA will Friday announce a rule allowing scissors up to 4" long, and screwdrivers up to 7" long, on airplanes. "

Now if they'd only accept my rule for preventing hijackings:

1. Pilots get .45s.
2. Passengers are encouraged to carry knives. BIG knives.

Any hijacker will be stuck in a plane with 100+ p.o.ed travellers whipping out bowies and K-bars, and a flight crew just waiting for the door to open.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)

Alito's questionaire and gun cases

Orin Kerr notes that Judge Alito has submitted a 64 page answer to the customary Senate questions, so I read it for anything relating to firearms law. The only portion I could find was where he described his role in briefing cases with the Solicitor General:

"Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, 460 U.S. 103 (1983). The question presented in this case was whether firearms disabilities imposed by provisions of the Gun Control Act apply to a person who was convicted of a state offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but whose conviction was expunged. On behalf of the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, we argued that statutorily prescribed disabilities are not automatically removed by expunction of the conviction under a state statute. The text of the statute applies to all persons “convicted” of certain crimes, regardless of whether the conviction is subsequently expunged. Other provisions of the Act and related federal statutes reinforce this conclusion and show that Congress carefully distinguished between present status and the occurrence of past events.
The Supreme Court agreed in an opinion by Justice Blackmun. The Court accepted our argument that an expunction under state law does not alter the effect of a disabling conviction for purposes of the federal statute, finding that the interpretation was supported not just by statutory text but by the purpose of Title IV, which was intended to curb crime by keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them."

Dickinson was overriden by the 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

At the very least, Alito has the right enemies

Over at the Brady Center, the top three stories are about Judge Alito, or "Machine Gun Sammy," as they've taken to calling him.

Alito is also front-page news at the Joyce-Foundation-funded Violence Policy Center, where three of their four lead stories concern him (the fourth praises the San Francisco gun ban).

The Brady Center conveniently posts, at top right margin, a box where you can email your Senators. Just be sure to personalize the message!

I can see the reason for their upset. If a narrow view is taken of Commerce Clause powers, along the lines of Alito's dissent in the machinegun case, you never get to the second amendment. You don't have to get that far -- Congress never had the power to enact the law in the first place. That'd (probably) leave Congress with the power to regulate true interstate commerce. Require FFLs for interstate purchases, require FFLs to keep records, etc. But beyond that (viz., everything the antigun movement has sought since 1968, and all of their "boutique bans" on assault weapons, etc.), Congressional power is at the very least in serious question. So from their standpoint, Alito is a lost vote in almost all gun cases (replacing O'Connor, who was only a lost vote if the case involved a major conflict with State responsibilities).

And if a Court does reach the right to arms issue: in my experience, a jurist who is comfortable with guns is open to an individual rights view, and an open mind is all we need. The ones who are closed-minding are those who, at an emotional level, are frightened by private ownership of firearms. If Alito sees nothing disturbing about private ownership of full autos, it's probably safe to say he falls under the open-minded classification. So a probable outcome of him on the Court would be a vote both for narrow commerce clause powers and for broad right to arms understandings.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Waco

There have been a few comments about the Waco tragedy, in 1993. Just thought I'd mention that I have a raher large webpage on the subject, based on three years of Freedom of Information Act suits to get information relating to it.

Just one sample: the raid and initial shootout were supposedly justified because Koresh was a reclusive paranoid who never left the building and thus could not be arrested without a major invasion.

I got the ATF reports that showed what the ATF undercover agents in the "undercover house" (across the street from the Davidian place) had done on February 19, nine days before the raid.

They went shooting.

With David Koresh.

He carried the ammo, they had the guns (until they loaned him a .38 Super). Then they went back home to plan the raid on the fellow who never left the building.

I am not kidding....

[UPDATES:

1. I haven't had time to update the page in a year or so. The audio .ra files aren't working, and when I have a chance I'll figure out why. I also want to insert larger video files (the page was created years back, when EVERYONE had dial-up, and a 500 meg file was enormous).

2. On prying for the Feb. 28 videos ... after literally years of courtroom work, here are the results from the ground-based cameras:

a. Camera on tripod near the "radio van." Finally got it, but it shows nothing but a blurry image of a building maybe 300 yards away.

b. Camera mounted on telephone pole: ATF claims they can't find the tape.

c. Camera in undercover house: ATF claims it failed for mysterious reasons. Officially, it kept ejecting the tapes (apparently it was a videocam linked to a VCR) rather than recording, due to radio interference from radio van. Problems: (i) VCR remotes work on infrared, not radio signals; (ii) ATF tried to duplicate the event with potent radio signals and couldn't do so. My guess is that someone just removed the tape and "vanished" it.

d. On the side: still camera carried by ATF's PR officer. She claims she put it on a table in raid HQ and it vanished, together with the film. Gad -- a room full of law enforcement, and a thief sneaks in and takes it? Pretty brazen.... Assuming that the story is true, it'd be apparent that ATF realized, during and right after the raid, that evidence had better start disappearing, period.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (4)

Move to get more mental health records in Brady database

From AP:

"Not one of their names was in a database that licensed gun dealers must check before making sales — even though federal law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the disqualifying records in the database.

In addition to mandating the sharing of mental health records, the legislation would require that states improve their computerized record-keeping for felony records and domestic violence restraining orders and convictions, which also are supposed to bar people from purchasing guns.

Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in 2002 and 2004."

I was at a planning session (made public by the Federal Advisory Committee Act) for the Brady Act database back in the mid-1990s. The planning group even then was seeking to consolidate mental health records (they figured the VA records would be easy to get, state records much harder), domestic orders, renunciations of citizenship (small number of files, kept by State Department), etc. I found the thing rather appalling ... as was the general disinterest in the matter by "privacy" advocates. I'd have expected even antigunners among the last to alert to the fact that the Brady files cover all Americans, whether they own guns or not.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Move to sorta-repeal DC gun ban dies

The WashPo reports that the proposed limit on the DC gun ban (an appropriations rider) has been deleted from the bill as enacted.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)

Amusing note on definitions

I've seen this in some state laws, but only now realized it was the case in Arizona... the legislature has managed to define "firearm" out of existence!

Arizona Revised Statutes, title 13, chapter 31, contains all the firearm law restrictions, including prohibited possessors, concealed carry, etc.. Section 3101 is the definition section, which applies to the entire chapter. Here are the two key definitions:

"3. "Explosive" means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder or other similar explosive material including plastic explosives. Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes."

"4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."

So firearm is anything that expels a project by explosive, but explosive does not include ammunition or gunpowder.....

{update: note that key is that gunpowder and ammo are not explosives. So a gun that shoots those is not legally a "firearm." A spud gun probably wouldn't qualify, either, unless the hair spray or whatever used to power it is considered an "explosive." A good argument could be made that, even tho it will detonate, it isn't, since the statute lists nitro, blasting powder, plastic explosive and other "similar" explosives, and hair spray vapor has little similarity there.

I've seen another definition of "firearm" somewhere in statutes -- that which expels a projectile by action of an expanding gas. Now, that would encompass spud guns, not to mention BB guns and airsoft guns. Maybe cork guns. But it's not the definition used here.]

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (5)

Al-Zaraqawi may be spending Thanskgiving all over Mosul

There are reports that the terrorist leader was among the eight leaders cornered in a house who blew themselves up.

Never count a man dead until you've seen the body, and even then remember you may be mistaken. I suspect the present data isn't much more than (a) we were tipped he'd be there and (b) eight people there blew themselves up.

On the other hand, word that eight of the leadership disassembled themselves is cheering. One top dog can be replaced a lot easier than eight of the leadership.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

American Prospect on Alito

An article in American Prospect attacks Alito's dissent in the machinegun case. Not a particularly good attack, I think. With regard to the Lopez precedent, its argument is little more than other judges rejected the argument, and the medical marihuana case (decided years after Alito wrote) suggests that the Court didn't in 2005 view Lopez as that broad.

I do find one segment interesting: "In early August of this year, one month before the Roberts confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chair Specter derided the "reinvigoration of federalism" in Lopez and other cases as "the hallmark agenda of the judicial activism of the Rehnquist Court" and a mere cover for "usurping Congress' authority."" (1) That says a lot for the Senate's respect for the Constitution when it conflicts with desired results; (2) it becomes rather obvious that even the view that the 'Constitution is what the courts say it is' is discarded the minute the courts say something that leads to an undesired policy result. In short, the question of constitutionality is increasingly becoming a question of how Congress can get the desired result of unlimited legislative power. (Except, of course, when the legislation in question involves abortion).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

SF gun ban brief

Clayton Cramer has a post on the San Fran gun ban, with a link to a brief filed by Chuck Michel and Don Kates in the matter (caveat: large pdf file). The brief appends a copy of the referendum.... and brother, is it one strange piece of legislation.

1. It bans all transfer of firearms and ammunition (rifle and pistol alike) within the city. This would include transfers by will, etc., so as rifle and shotgun owners die off, their firearms become contraband.

2. It bans handgun possession by residents of the city. A nonresident may still possess a handgun while in town (provided other CA requirements are met).

3. The ban on possession by residents applies to police officers, except when they are actually performing official duties.

4. The ban applies to pretty much everyone else, at all times. Which means it may be difficult to try a case involving a handgun. There is no exemption for court clerks to possess a handgun as an exhibit in a case, or for prosecutors or defense attorneys to pick one up during the trial. (On the other hand, there's probably no such exemption in the drug laws, but attorneys, judges, and jurors regularly "possess" heroin, meth and everything else in the course of a trial).

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Notes on Alito and gun control

Judge Alito's thesis advisor found a copy of his 1972 thesis. Not that that's terribly important (it was on the work of the Italian Supreme Court), but he told the Daily Princetonian:

""He is much more an Anti-federalist where state and national authority clash, more libertarian on issues such as gun control, and much tighter on some matters as the rights of the criminally accused than I," Murphy said in an earlier email message.

"We, however, agree on other important issues, such as finding no constitutional barrier to bans on late term abortions and requiring spousal and parental notification of impending abortions."

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

San Fran gun ban passes

Word is that the SF referendum on a city gun ban passed yesterday. It reportedly outlaws and authorizes confiscation of all handguns, and prohibits future transfers of rifles and shotguns. From what I've heard, it's in violation of the State pre-emption laws. NRA has announced it'll sue (see extended entry below).

Hint to anyone proposing a pre-emption statute, or want to put teeth in it: insert a provision for attorneys' fees and perhaps damages. Otherwise, a city can and will go ahead and enact one anyway, and figure if anyone objects to the illegality they've have to lay out thousands in legal fees to do anything about it.

[UPDATE: Just received an email from Don Kates, stating that he and Chuck Michel have filed suit challenging it as a violation of the state pre-emption laws.]

Continue reading "San Fran gun ban passes"

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (9)

Another Brady Center press release on Alito

Brady Center has issued another one. This is pretty good. They excoriate Alito for not showing more deference to Congress (i.e., not figuring it has the Constitutional power to do something -- because it wants to do something). It gets upset that Alito's dissent asks the the government come forth with "empirical evidence" that the action forbidden is actually within Congress's power over interstate commerce. And protests why should this be required, "beyond the substantial findings already made by Congress" -- nevermind that the 1986 amendment which added 18 USC 922(o) had no relevant findings attached.

It calls it an "example of judicial activism at its worst." To which the best response is Hinderaker's article below. It is NOT judicial activitism to recognize what is expressly in the Constitution.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

New pro-Alito blog

{via the Volokh Conspiracy} There's a new, pro-Alito blog online. Quite a change from the Harriet Miers days of, oh, a month ago.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)

Use of expanding projectiles in war on terror

Via Budd Schroeder... an interesting webpage on legal status of expanding projectiles against terrorists. The point is made that the Hague Convention isn't applicable to a situation such as this, where the fight is not against enemy soldiers serving a nation-state (let along a signatory to the treaty), and thus there's nothing illicit about using match-grade hollow-points.

Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)

Hinderaker and Mirengoff on Alito nomination

The WaPo has an article by bloggers John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff on the Alito nomination. A historical point:

"Focusing on what it means to be a "conservative" in this context highlights a basic asymmetry between how the left and the right look at the Supreme Court. Until the past few decades, nominations to the court were generally noncontroversial. The court was not viewed as a political power center, and most people assumed that a judge would affect their lives only if they happened to have a case before him. Thus, as recently as 1962, Justice Byron White was confirmed just 11 days after being nominated by President John F. Kennedy, by a unanimous voice vote in the Senate following a Judiciary Committee hearing that lasted a single morning.

What happened to turn Supreme Court nominations into mini-Armageddons? Liberals increasingly came to view the court as a legislature of last resort, where policies too liberal and too unpopular to be enacted by real legislatures could be mandated by fiat of the court's liberal majority. ....

When conservatives say that we want "conservative" judges, or "strict constructionist" or "constitutionalist" judges, what we mean is pretty simple: We want judges who won't make stuff up. We want judges who won't view the Constitution as a mirror in which, at every turn, they see reflected their own opinions and policy preferences.....

The corollary of the proposition that judges shouldn't make up stuff that isn't in the Constitution or laws is that judges also don't have the discretion to ignore language that is in the Constitution or the laws. Thus, the interstate commerce clause must be recognized as a limitation on Congress's power to regulate the economy, as Judge Roberts noted in the case of the "hapless toad." The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws can't be ignored every time a public university wants to prefer some applicants over others, based on race. And the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms can't be treated as