<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Of Arms and the Law</title>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/</link>
<description></description>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:19:57 -0700</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.15</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Light blogging</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Out of town on business yesterday afternoon and today--will have little to no chance to update anything...</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/light_blogging_11.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/light_blogging_11.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:19:57 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>NYC losing suppression mtns in fed. court</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/nyregion/12guns.html" target="_blank"> here</a>. Gist is that NYC, in order to get the longer prison sentences that come under federal law, has arranged for felons in possession to be charged in federal court. But they've been losing cases right and left because the judges find the testimony as to why the person was searched incredible (in the bad sense of that term).</p>

<p>"But a closer look at those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers’ testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges’ language was often withering: “patently incredible,” “riddled with exaggerations,” “unworthy of belief.”"</p>

<p>What's almost as interesting is that NY is helping to initiate federal cases because, presumably, NY law gives a lower (probably significantly lower, given the trouble involved) sentence for felons caught carrying. I thought NY had such a crime problem that they wanted the other 49 states to act in conformity with their desires? Certainly doesn't sound like it.</p>

<p>Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/nyc_losing_supp.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/nyc_losing_supp.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:50:37 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Walmart and sportsmen</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>An <a href="http://www.envirolink.org/external.html?itemid=200805120134460.215018" target="_blank"> interesting article</a>. I didn't have time a while back to blog about Warmart's deal with Bloomberg to do things like videotape firearm sales. It was interesting, since (outside of Alaska) Walmart only sells hunting rifles and shotguns. I guess Bloomberg has bigger targets than urban handguns... oh, and the linked page has a link to where you can give Walmart some feedback.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/walmart_and_spo.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/walmart_and_spo.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 07:53:07 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>David Codrea interview of David E. Young</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Over at <a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/david-e-young-interview.html" target="_blank"> The War on Guns</a>. David Young's written two crucial books on the 2nd Amendment (one of which was quoted I forget how many times in Emerson v. US, and both of which were quoted in Heller amicus brief). He and I will be exhibiting at booth 1551 at the NRA Annual Meeting.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/david_codrea_in.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/david_codrea_in.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 07:44:57 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Opinion on Eagle Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Indians</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-8093.pdf" target="_blank">Here</a>, in pdf. Altho it construes a statute, it applies a number of constitutional standards. When I was at Interior, I worked with some of these issues. The Eagle Protection Act generally outlaws intentionally killing eagles or using their parts. Certain Indian tribes consider them essential to various religious services. To try to deal with that, Interior puts dead eagles (road kill, mostly) into a repository and rations out feathers, etc.</p>

<p>Problem here was that this tribe maintained that the eagle being offered to the Almighty must be pure, i.e., not road kill. In fact, the stricter adherents maintained the eagle must be captured live by a person. Having seen their claws and beaks, I think I'd contract that job out.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/opinion_on_eagl.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/opinion_on_eagl.php</guid>
<category>General con law</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 12:34:33 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Meet the gun lobby....</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>69 year old lady carrying for two grandkids, but with 450,000 Florida members behind her. Story <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flogun0511sbmay11,0,6442408.story" target="_blank"> here</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/meet_the_gun_lo.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/meet_the_gun_lo.php</guid>
<category>NRA</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 12:32:40 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>It depends on whose ox is being gored...</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Cash-strapped Massacchusetts (wonder why?) comes up with a plan. Fund social services, etc. by imposing a 2.5% tax on college foundations, to the extent their assets exceed a billion dollars. Yes, billion with a "b." Oh, the <a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/05/mass-considers.html" target="_blank"> indignation</a>!</p>

<p>Via Instapundit...</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/it_depends_on_w.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/it_depends_on_w.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 11:31:17 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ATF &amp; FBI in turf fights</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050903096.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008050903113" target="_blank">Story here</a>. That's not unpredictable: "merging" two agencies by having them both report to one Cabinet official doesn't change anything. Where they overlap, it has a downside -- merging all intelligence functions means those above only get one "position" rather than 2-3 that might give better insight.</p>

<p>FBI's had turf wars with CIA over foreign intelligence gathering, and I seem to recall with DEA over drug cases. I'm sure ATF sees FBI as wanting to grab all the best explosives cases and leave them with the uninteresting or less fruitful ones, and the FBI sees itself as the older brother with certain perks.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/atf_fbi_in_turf_2.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/atf_fbi_in_turf_2.php</guid>
<category>BATFE</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 10:57:10 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ATF &amp; FBI in turf fights</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24549241/" target="_blank">Story here</a>. That's not unpredictable: "merging" two agencies by having them both report to one Cabinet official doesn't change anything. Where they overlap, it has a downside -- merging all intelligence functions means those above only get one "position" rather than 2-3 that might give better insight.</p>

<p>FBI's had turf wars with CIA over foreign intelligence gathering, and I seem to recall with DEA over drug cases. I'm sure ATF sees FBI as wanting to grab all the best explosives cases and leave them with the uninteresting or less fruitful ones, and the FBI sees itself as the older brother with certain perks.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/atf_fbi_in_turf_1.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/atf_fbi_in_turf_1.php</guid>
<category>BATFE</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 10:57:10 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>What would a narrow, pro-individual right finding in Heller mean?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A question raised by a comment a few days back, too busy just now to find it. Suppose, as I'd expect, the Supremes come down, perhaps narrowly, for an individual right, that there are some limits, but here we only need rule that a total federal ban on handguns is not a permissible limitation.</p>

<p>What does the near-term future world look like, in terms of (1) future litigation and (2) politics and (3) gun control promoting organizations? On the last, would it be a great blow to morale, or just confirm their modern tactics of asking for rather small things (instead of national registration and permit systems, take that bayonet lug off that nasty-looking gun!) I have little idea.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/what_would_a_na.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/what_would_a_na.php</guid>
<category>Parker v. DC</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 22:35:18 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&quot;We&apos;re all gun nuts now&quot;</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>It's the title of an election-related <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/090ashrb.asp?pg=1" target="_blank""> article</a> in the Weekly Standard.</p>

<p>"With both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination evading the gun control issue as if it were sniper fire, you couldn't blame gun control advocates for feeling bitter. Yet Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence--the pro-gun control counterweight to the National Rifle Association--says Obama and Clinton are "coming fairly close to delivering the message that we'd like." On licensing and registering guns, Helmke says, they are "being realistic" in recognizing "there's no support for pushing that forward at this stage." His thoughts on the candidates' ducking questions on the D.C. gun ban? "They're politicians, and most politicians on tough calls do not answer."</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/were_all_gun_nu.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/were_all_gun_nu.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 22:29:12 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Where to comment on allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Here's the comment <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497" target="_blank"> website</a>. I'd cut and paste the Docket ID, FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062, into the message just to make sure it gets to the right place. You can read the proposed rule as a pdf off the comment page, too.</p>

<p>The admin rules are essentially: if the agency wants to change a rule, they must publish a proposed rule with explanation. The public must be given a reasonable time (30-60 days is customary) to comment on it. Then the agency publishes the final rule, together with a response to significant comments. So it's not just a letter to the editor: although numbers don't hurt, logical reasons affect the process better than simple statements of support. I'd suggest emphasizing how law-abiding CCW licenesees are (preferrably with links to sites with hard numbers), and responding to claims it'd lead to risk of poaching.</p>

<p>UPDATE: reader Carl in Chicago provides his comment, pasted into extended remarks, below.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/where_to_commen.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/where_to_commen.php</guid>
<category>CCW licensing</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 17:45:51 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defense of others in Dallas</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Video <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=92953" target="_blank"> here</a>. I see an officer carrying an AR-15 variant, not clear if that's what was used, or if it was the officer's gear.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/defense_of_othe.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/defense_of_othe.php</guid>
<category>Self defense</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:13:32 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>GA court strikes down Atlanta ordinance on guns in parks</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Story <a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/05/09/gunparks_0510.html" target="_blank"> here</a>. Congrats to the plaintiff, GeorgiaCarry.org.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/ga_court_strike.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/ga_court_strike.php</guid>
<category>State legislation</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 19:15:03 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comcast continuing...</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I told the person yesterday, when the tech people are coming out, call my office number, here it is. Do not call the cell number, the one on the account.</p>

<p>They were supposed to be here between 10 and 12: nobody showed up.</p>

<p>So I call back in... and am told the tech called me. I ask, did he call the office number? Yes, that's the number we gave him. I responded -- I have caller ID, that shows two calls today, and I answered both. Uh... no explanation, we'll tell him to put you on the list when he's available.</p>

<p>Checked home phone. Yep, he called there. Called back and was told someone will be here "today." </p>

<p>Someone was angered enough to create <a href="http://comcastmustdie.com/" target="_blank"> Comcast Must Die</a>.</p>

<p>UPDATE: 6 PM local, it was fixed. First repair guy again called the wrong number, but that was handy since I wasn't here, but was available via the wrong number. He showed up, traced the problem to the box at the edge of the property (which contains the amplifier), but that was something a separate team had to fix. They showed up, left (I suspect to get a replacement?) returned, and high speed is operational again.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/comcast_continu.php</link>
<guid>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/05/comcast_continu.php</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:16:52 -0700</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>