Of Arms and the Law

Snowflakes in Hell: NRA Board recommendations

Here are Snowflakes in Hell's recommendations in the ongoing vote for NRA Board members.

[Oops. Deleted the double posting!]

Ohio Supreme Court to hear pre-emption case

Story here. Cleveland adopted a bar on open carry, maintaining that the legislature's pre-emption statute violates its home-rule powers, under the State constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed with that, but the Ohio Supreme Court, after being petitioned by the state's Attorney General, has agreed to take the case.

Report from Ohio State University campus

Reader Mark Noble emails his thoughts in relation to yesterday's shooting at OSU:

I’ve been very disappointed in OSU PD’s handling of public safety. The campus is surrounded on 3 sides by some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Columbus. When I’ve talked to the Columbus Police Community Liaison officer at on-campus safety events they blame the victims for getting assaulted and robbed in the neighborhood. Many of the robberies happen to students walking in pairs or groups (which are no match for one or two armed attackers) and the Police parrot the same advice “walk in groups”. To discourage car and apartment thefts they advise OSU students to carry all of their valuables on their person – this just leads to juicier unarmed targets.

I watched the 11:00a press conference from OSU PD. Important facts from the conference.

OSU “takes safety very seriously”.
OSU PD arrived exactly two minutes and one second after the situation was over.
OSU PD heroically captured the suspect who had shot himself and lay dying.
OSU heroically notified students of the danger a half-hour after the threat was over.

Reporter: Are you satisfied with the way that everything worked?

OSU Director of Public safety: I'm extremely satisfied and I'm also very appreciative of not only the way that the staff responded in terms of notifying us - taking cover - but also I'm very pleased with the response of our police and law enforcement personnel and also the EMS personnel who responded fairly quickly.

SOURCE: 6:50 into this video.

Other incidents on campus involve multiple armed robberies on the gun-free campus. One very close to the scene of today’s shooting in the same building with the police station. Several shootings have happened at the University Hospital nearby where state prison inmates are brought for treatment and occasionally try to escape.

Because of fears of “drunken college students” misusing handguns, my mom and brother who work in adjacent buildings to this fatal shooting are prevented by their employer and state law from defending themselves at work. My brother is a concealed handgun licensee. My wife, an OSU student frequents another part of campus where a woman was raped the other day. A few days prior, a student with a golf club disrupted an earlier attack attempt in the same area – yet my wife, an NRA Certified Pistol instructor cannot be trusted to defend her own life because she’s a “college student”.

Article on standards of review in 2A cases

By David Kopel and Clayton Cramer, here.

Hat tip to reader Joe Olson...

Background to Chicago handgun ban

Some background, at The American Thinker.

Bonus for registering for National Firearms Law Seminar

The National Firearms Law Seminar is the annual Continuing Legal Education seminar put on in connection with the NRA Convention -- the next one is at Charlotte, on May 14. Here's the program.

This year, registration has a bonus. The first 150 to register will get a credit, equal to their registration fee, toward setting up an NFA Gun Trust, courtesy of gun trust lawyer David M. Goldman. Here's his webpage.

You can register online, or use a pdf linked to that page to register by mail, or call 877-NRF-LAWS. For more info, email LawSeminar@nrahq.org.

Mayor Daley doubles down

While awaiting the result in McDonald, Mayor Daley is lobbying for additional gun laws. ""The aggressiveness of the gun advocates is just one reason it's more important than ever that we work for common-sense gun laws..." He demands "changes to state law that would require background checks for those buying a gun in a private sale, ban assault weapons, require that gun dealers be licensed and limit the number of handgun purchases to one per person per month, plus micro-stamping and making it a felony to sell a gun to a known gang member (the last has major void for vagueness problems).

Starbucks and the Supreme Court

Bob Barr has thoughts on both. Personally, I may buy a terribly overpriced cup of coffee, for the first time in my life.

Interesting article on an aspect of the Tiahrt Amendment

I knew that the Amendment bans release of gun trace data to cities seeking to sue firearms dealers, but I didn't know that it also declares any such data admissible in evidence. This article argues that the latter restriction, as applied to State courts, is unconstitutional. I wonder, however, whether the fact that the restriction pertains to data originating in Federal investigations, with an allegation that its release might compromise those investigations, doesn't make this more of a "necessary and proper clause" case than a commerce clause case.

Pictures from the McDonald v. Chicago argument

Here are some that I got that day. Understand, we began waiting at 5 AM. Ahead of me were Sarah Gervase and Frederick Jones, who'd been waiting since 4:15 AM, I think he said. He's Otis McDonald's nephew, and a member of the Supreme Court Bar, and was taking no chances on missing his uncle's Supreme Court case. Here are the pictures:

Some of us waiting in the predawn darkness (on the left is Frederick Jones, Mr. McDonald’s nephew.)

Otis McDonald and Alan Gura after the argument.

Mr and Mrs. McDonald coming down the steps.

Here's the crowd outside after the argument,

and the Second Amendment Foundation’s reception that evening.

Transcript of McDonald v. Chicago argument

Available here. I think five votes for incorporation, there might be one (Thomas) who would go for privileges or immunities. (P or I has all the history and logic behind it, and due process has all the case law, and it certainly looks as if the Court favors the case law).

We thought Justice Thomas would ask a question, since toward the end of Chicago's presentation he passed a note to a clerk who departed and returned to give him a copy of the US reports (the official print of Supreme Court decisions). But no question was forthcoming, perhaps because Chicago's time ran out soon thereafter.

UPDATE: Bottom line is that Alan's argument for privileges or immunities incorporation drew serious fire from Scalia, and some from CJ Roberts, and none of the other friendly Justices rallied to assist. OK, read those tea leaves. The Court granted cert. on questions presented which included both P or I and due process incorporation, but there isn't much support for the former (or perhaps the supporters are remaining silent). Whichever it is, this is not a line of attack that at 10 AM on March 2, 2010 is going to give much promise to winning more votes if you persist.

McDonald v. Chicago

Just got back from oral argument. Short form: I think we have five votes. MIGHT do better than five, but five seem secure. Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy seemed VERY strongly against Chicago's position, Alito seemed against it, Thomas asked no questions but is thorough pro-2a and 14thA, so it looks like the Heller majority holds. Conversely, Breyer attacked Heller and kept arguing against incorporation. Majority did not like privileges or immunities, but due process seemed solid.

Humor: the room was packed, hundreds of people, every seat taken. After McDonald, the Court remained in place to hear the next case. As I left I heard the chief justice say "Well, counsel, WE're still here." I looked back and saw what he meant -- there were perhaps 20 people staying for the next case, as hundreds left.

One debate I cannot understand

A post in the Washington Times. Key theme is conservatives (esp. "judicial activism is my key tenet" such) getting worried.

My take: if there are ever five Justices for it, they can do ANYTHING they want under due process incorporation, since it has no leg or popular history underlying it -- it's more of good result, mind the means, rulings. At least privileges or immunities incorp has a historical background, explanations by Sen, Howard abd Rep. Bingham, as some manner of originalist limitations.

US News and World Retort on Chicago case

Story here. An excellent piece, in which the human aspects are all up front, and the complaints toward the back. Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah...

McDonald v, Chicago countdown

In Heller, the Supreme Court released the audio of the oral argument a few hours after it was completed, but In the case tomorrow they won't. A transcript of it will be online here, sometime later in the day.

I'll be out of blogging action for some time, since I'll be in the courtroom (and waiting in line from 5 AM onward). I know Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell and Christie Caywood of the Bitchgirls will be on the courthouse steps.