Latest Alec Baldwin excuse
It's even more BS. He didn't pull the trigger. It was a Colt single action Army, I think, which means he cocked it and pointed it at someone, at a minimum. If he let the hammer loose before it was fully cocked, the safety notch or the half-cock notch should have prevented firing. Those have been known to fail, but that's just another reason not to get stupid with a firearm.
Revolt against proportionality in self-defence
A paper by Prof. Renee Lerner, of George Washington Univ. law school.
Its theme: self-defense is an area where the views of the legal elite and the rest of the population collide. In the eyes of the legal elite (and thus the law), the lives of the aggressor and of the defender have equal or almost equal value. Thus the defender can only use lethal force if he reasonably fears that the aggressor is about to use the same force; the tie goes to the runner, or the defender, but otherwise they are equal.
To the rest of the world's population, tho, they are not at all of equal value. The life of a burglar and of a good citizen homeowner are not at all of equal value, nor are those of a person minding their own business and someone who attacks and tries to do them harm. Years ago, a local prosecutor told me that he'd told his boss they might as well give up prosecuting homeowners who shot fleeing burglars in the back. It was illegal, but they'd had three cases of that type and lost three jury verdicts in a row, and if juries will not convict, then it is legal in the real world, regardless of what the statutes say.
Her paper has an interesting point; many European codes are actually more liberal toward the defender than is American law. And some have provisions that, if the court finds the defendant hasn't proven self-defense, but they acted under a state of mind that was motivated by the fear or anger caused by the attacker, then the charge is reduced. They shouldn't have done it, but still the aggressor bears a good part of the blame.
Another from the 9th Circuit
Duncan v. Bonta, an en banc upholding California's ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. More of the usual. It does get lively in the dissents and concurrences.
Judge Bumatay, dissenting (joined by two others):
"In reality, this tiers-of-scrutiny approach functions as nothing more than a black box used by judges to uphold favored laws and strike down disfavored ones. But that is not our role. While we acknowledge that California asserts a public safety interest, we cannot bend the law to acquiesce to a policy that contravenes the clear decision made by the American people when they ratified the Second Amendment."
"All this interest balancing is in blatant disregard of the Court's instructions. Nowhere in Heller or McDonald did the Supreme Court pick a tier of scrutiny for Second Amendment challenges. Nor did the Court compare the relative costs of firearms regulations to their potential public-safety benefits, adopt a sliding scale, look at alternative channels of self-defense, or see if there was a reasonable fit between the regulation and the state's objective. The absence of these balancing tools was not accidental. The Court made clear that such judicial balancing is simply incompatible with the guarantees of a fundamental right."
Judge VanDyke, dissenting:
"our court's Second Amendment jurisprudence can hardly be labeled angelic. Possessed maybe--by a single-minded focus on ensuring that any panel opinions actually enforcing the Second Amendment are quickly reversed. The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this circuit's caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court's cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails our laughably "heightened" Second Amendment scrutiny.
This case is par for the course. The majority emphasizes the statistical rarity of law-abiding citizens' need to fire more than an average of 2.2 shots in self-defense, but glosses over the statistical rarity of the harm that California points to as supporting its magazine ban."
Judge Hurwitz, concurring:
"I am reluctantly compelled to respond to the dissent of my brother Judge VanDyke, who contends that the "majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution." That language is no more appropriate (and no more founded in fact) than would be a statement by the majority that today's dissenters are willing to rewrite the Constitution because of their personal infatuation with firearms."
Major LAPD gun scandal
Story here. The police academy has a gun store. and it turns out the manager has been selling a lot of guns "off the books." quite a few to officers.
One of California's more stupid restrictions is that only handguns on the state safety roster can be sold new at retail. Qualifying for the roster is expensive, and the manufacturer must pay, with the result that a lot of perfectly safe handguns are banned from sale. BUT the law exempts law enforcement (and if I recall, prosecutors). Obviously if it were really aimed at safety, why would you exempt law enforcement? Why would you want them to have unsafe items? But I digress.
The law does not, however, ban private sale or possession of non-roster guns. Thus there is a thriving trade in LEOs buying banned guns and then reselling them to non-LEOs.
"The Liberal Case for Gun Ownership"
An essay. Not so long ago, pro-gun liberals and Dems were a potent block. The 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act was sponsored by Harold Volkmer, later an NRA director, and passed by a Democratic House that rebelled against its leadership (a majority signed the petition to discharge the bill from Judiciary Committee). "Big John" Dingell was a pro-gun leader in the Senate. JFK and Hubert Humphrey were pro-gun. Today....
Update: An interesting article on how the criminal defense bar is starting to argue for the inherent injustice of gun control. Earlier, in NYSRPA, a group of public defenders filed an incredible brief on that theme.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (5)
Campus bigots petition to keep Kyle Rittenhouse from attending college
Just glad it was Arizona State, and not U of AZ, my alma mater.
Murderous SUV charged
Following the NY Times' proclamation that the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre was "caused by an SUV," it is good to learn that local prosecutors are throwing the book at the murderous vehicle.
Hollywood rallies around Alec Baldwin
Disgusting. The guy takes a gun without checking it, from someone who also took it without checking it, and if reports are true, aims it at people as a prank (the rehearsal didn't call for a shot), and kills someone.
So his fellow celebs send things like "our hearts are broken along with yours" and "sending so much love."
Not a gun issue, but...
An example of what you have to put up with in the Ninth Circuit, based on San Francisco and taking on its mores and values (to the extent any are left).
This case concerns a proposed new airport, for an Amazon distribution facility. The issue is compliance with the NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act. The defendant prepared an environmental assessment, then decided based on that that there would not be so substantial an impact on the environment as to require an Environmental Impact Statement, which takes years and a lot of $$$. The majority upholds the decision. A rather boring case unless you're into NEPA, or the proposed airport.
But the dissent (beginning on p. 46): "This case reeks of environmental racism, defined as "the creation, construction, and enforcement of environmental laws that have a disproportionate and disparate impact upon a particular race[.]"" Farther on, got to work in global warming: "A recent article in the Washington Post is a startling reminder of the pall pollution has cast over the planet. According to a scientist from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, ""[i]t is likely that nearly everyone in the world now experiences changes in extreme weather as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions.""
Yes, no environmental analysis is complete unless it takes into account racism and global warming. Welcome to the Ninth Circuit.
Meaningless blabber about Rittenhouse verdict
Shocked by the thought that a man may defend himself against violent attack. Inadvertently revealing which side they are on, in an emotional sense.
I've been offline a couple of days in the aftermath of cataract removal surgery. All is well.
Update: the parents of one of the aggressors really added to the BS:
"Today's verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street."
"No reasonable person viewing all of the evidence could conclude that Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. In response to racist and violent calls to action from militia members, Mr. Rittenhouse travelled to Kenosha illegally armed with an assault rifle. He menaced fellow citizens in the street. Though he was in open violation of a curfew order, Kenosha police encouraged him to act violently. Kenosha police told militia members that they would push peaceful protestors toward the militia so that the militia could "deal with them." Soon after, Mr. Rittenhouse killed Joseph Rosenbaum. The police did nothing. Concerned citizens, confronted with a person shooting indiscriminately on the street, stepped in to stop the violence. Anthony was shot in the chest trying to disarm Mr. Rittenhouse and stop his shooting spree. Still, the police did nothing. Mr. Rittenhouse continued to shoot, maiming Gaige Grosskreutz. The police let Mr. Rittenhouse leave the scene freely. Mr. Rittenhouse came to Kenosha armed to kill."
That's got to hurt...
A twitter post: "As a German, I will never understand how this kid can walk on open street with a gun."
One reply: "As a Jew, I'm glad the opinions of Germans about whether or not I can have a firearm isn't relevant to me."
Ouch!