Lott on defensive gun uses
John Lott has a study of press-reported defensive gun uses. (In my experience, defensive uses are very rarely reported in the press). I especially like this story:
"Young yelled at the deputies and then fired on them. The first deputy was hit in the head and dropped to the ground.
The second deputy stepped forward and returned fire in an effort to protect the deputy who had already been shot...
Police said that was when good Samaritans armed with their own weapons stepped forward and fired multiple shots in the direction of Young to provide cover for and protect the wounded deputies, the Bellingham Herald reported.
The good Samaritans told KING that they were military veterans and they weren't going to sit still and watch law enforcement officers be murdered so they took their children inside their homes and came back out with their own guns...
The sheriff wrote that ... "Second, we are extraordinarily blessed that several armed citizens came to the deputies' assistance at the critical moments when they were most vulnerable....""
RIP John Ross
Only Guns and Money reports that John Ross, author of "Unintended Consequences," has died of a heart attack while working on a sequel.
Thoughts on NYSRPA v. Bruen
Supreme Court oral arguments are divided into "sessions" aka "sittings," each lasting two weeks and encompassing 10-12 arguments. The custom is that each Justice gets at least one opinion to write from each session. Usually, that's not difficult: yes, every Term will have two or so really controversial cases, and about 50-60 that are mundane. Odds are a Justice won't often be in the dissent on ten cases in a row.
If you plot out the cases of a session vs. who has already written an opinion from it, you can often get an idea of who is writing the opinion(s) yet to be decided.
NYSRPA was one of ten cases argued in the session beginning November 1. Of the ten cases, Gorsuch got two, and everyone else has gotten one except for Justices Thomas and Barrett. So the author will likely be one of those two. This is, of course, great news for the 2A, as the two are great stalwarts for original public understanding. As far as the reasoning to be used, Barrett is very supportive of "text, history, and tradition," and Thomas is inclined that way.
Most First Amendment cases employ balancing tests as a basis, with the test weighted by standard of review -- strict scrutiny, intermediate review, rational basis, and sometimes a few more. Assess the purported need against the right being protected. But for rights outside the 1A, "text, history and tradition" tend to prevail. Right to a jury trial, or against self-incrimination -- don't talk to us about what need there is for restricting them, discuss whether this measure fits in with their text, history and tradition. One might even say, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" By that standard, with a little pushing, restrictions on concealed but not open carry might pass muster, and anything more restrictive than that is going to be very doubtful.
My latest paper on the 2A
It's posted at SSRN. "What 'Text, History and Tradition' Matter in Construing the Constitution?"
Among other finds I made: a lot of the antis' arguments on the subject invoke the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which seemingly banned all carrying of arms. I found that (1) the notion that British common law applied in the colonies is mistaken. Colonial charters often commanded the colonies to apply common law insofar as it fit in with their conditions. The monarchs recognized that the colonies would be dealing with issues that didn't arise in Britain. (2) The Statute definitely didn't fit in with American conditions. The colonies commonly commanded their residents to be armed and to carry arms on certain occasions. (3) As Clayton Cramer first suggested, the Statute's command is probably a mis-translation of the original Law French, in which "armed" probably meant "wearing armor," not "carrying arms."
More on Alec Baldwin shooting
Right here. The sheriff has released video of Baldwin during earlier segments of the filming. These show he wasn't worrying about having his finger inside the trigger guard and pressing the trigger while handling a cocked single-action. Of course, he's playing a gunman who's drawing and ready to fire, but all the more reason to follow the tightest safety procedures -- starting with making very, very, sure the gun isn't loaded and there isn't a live round anywhere in the area. And, of course, not pointing it at anyone. Plus a few other things that anyone who respects a gun's power would be doing.