« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 2005
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
More on NYC cooking crime statistics
The Village Voice has an article on how NYC is cooking the books to drive crime figures down. Thefts are being officially logged as "lost property," and even as hospital treatment for assault is rising, assault statistics are falling. Apparently the City wants lower crime so as to look better to tourists and make the city administration look good. If it can't have lower crime, it'll settle for lower reported crime. [Thanks to Budd Schroeder for the story]
And here's a personal experience -- a victim's report of pickpocketing is downgraded to lost property, until he spends several days of investigation and waiting to meet police requirements. (Most interesting is the two police divisions, each of which states it can do nothing until the other accepts a report).
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
Congressional Research Service lights fire under NFA registry
The Congressional Research Service has issued a lengthy study (pdf) of the NFA registration system, and it's a scorcher. Understand that search warrants, raids, and convictions are based upon negative reports from this system, which are used to establish that an NFA weapon (full auto, or short barrelled shotgun or rifle) is not registered, so the sytem should be perfect or very near perfect. According to the report, it's far from that.
Questions about its accuracy have been raised since the 1970s. (pp. 1-2). Treasury's Inspector General found significant problems in 1998, including improper destruction of records, inaccuracies, and failure to follow procedure. But the IG did not examine legal issue of whether problems were sufficient to call into question certifications that guns were not registered. (p. 2).
The GCA 68 provided an amnesty period for registrations, and they flooded in, overwhelming the staff. As a result records were fouled up, wrong serial numbers recorded, records misfiled (no computers then, so a paper in the wrong file might go missing forever). (p. 4)
A 1975 internal ATF document refers to "continuously" finding errors in the system, and raises the worry that an innocent person might be convicted as a result, if he had lost his own copy of the registration. (p.6).
In 1996, John LeaSure was convicted of six counts of possessing unlicensed machineguns. His attorney, Jim Jeffiries, obtained a copy of an ATF training tape in which the fellow in charge of NFA registrations told agents that the database was flawed, but that his people would always testify that it was perfect. Informed of a partial transcript of the tape, the judge set aside five of the six counts. (p. 7) [Here's a previous posting that includes video of the training tape.
Actual accuracy is unknown. It was claimed to be 1.5%, but a 1998 Treasury Inspector General study found it was higher, based on samplings -- strangely, the report does not give the actual number, and the IG declined to study larger samples. (p.9)
The accuracy may be esp. problematic for DEWATS, deactivated war trophies. (p. 10)
A MAJOR set of criticisms of Treasury Inspector General responses to inquiries about accuracy. (pp. 11-15).
An examination of how an amnesty could be used to try to make the system accurate, and how it could be structured. (pp. 16-18)
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (2)
Poll on NRA, other groups
Via the Bitch Girls:
A Harris poll on various organizations yields some interesting results.
NRA, at 90%, has the highest name recognition (Greenpeace is at 81, ACLU at 80, Sierra Club 64, Common Cause 24).
As would be expected of an advocacy group, it tends to have high positives and negatives (48/52% trust or don't trust). Sierra Club does better (59/41), and ACLU is about the same (49/51), altho it has the highest ratings of "do not trust at all". AFL-CIO came off the worst (41/59).
The partisan breakdown is hardly surprising -- Democrats are more likely to distrust the NRA, and Republicans to distrust the ACLU. Only the Nature Conservancy and AARP do well with both parties.
Permalink · NRA · 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)
Gun Control -- thinking small
An op-ed in WashPo, by a supporter of gun control, raises the point I've made earlier: "But what troubles me most is that the gun control lobby is pouring its resources into battles that probably won't save many lives -- and we're losing even those. ..." The author (who favors handgun prohibition) points out that waiting periods, suits against gun manufacturers, etc. are (even if you assume gun control works) not going to change things measurably.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (3)
Vin Suprynowicz on the Second Amendment
Vin Suprynowicz has an interesting take on the "the Framers wouldn't have created a Second Amendment if they'd known about modern weaponry" argument.
Permalink · Framing of Constitution · Comments (4)
Things like this give revolving door justice a bad name
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Keith Carter opened fire on a pair of police officers with an illegal (of course) submachinegun, not injuring either but riddling their car with 60 rounds. He fled but was later arrested.
One of the arresting officers (who was also in the pait that were fired upon) had no trouble recognizing him. Six months before, Carter had fired upon him with another illegal submachinegun, and had been arrested for that!
The magistrate let him out with a $5,000 bond. Sounds like a cluster-**** all around. In the first case, assault on an officer wasn't charged, since it wasn't possible to prove he knew his target was an undercover officer. Can't find any articles on what was charged in the first case, but you'd expect attempted murder for starters. Either (a) there was some massive foulup in the charging process, or (b) the judge thought a $5000 bond sufficient for attempted murder, etc.
BTW, he was also free on bond arising from two earlier drug arrests.
Here's an article on the attack, which discusses the housing project in which it occurred. Apparently the place was in the grips of a war between two gangs. Victims of shootings were tight-lipped. Not too surprising, if the attacker could post a $5000 bond and be gunning for snitches tommorrow.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
He knows if you've been naughty or nice...
From Reuters comes an article on naughty santas. My favorite:
"That incident paled in comparison to what happened in Auckland on Saturday when 40 drunken Santas rampaged through the city center, stealing from stores and assaulting security guards in a protest against Christmas becoming too commercial."
Permalink · Personal · 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 [email protected].
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 [email protected], 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
Every year...
Every Christmas, back at least to 1975, John Snyder of Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, has sent out a card along these lines, and every year for 30 years now it's gotten press.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Suit against Vermont court system
Judges may be above the law, but administrators are not...
According to this article, Vermont court authorities have settled a suit against them for $200,000. Plaintiff can very charitably be described as a gadfly. Upset at handling of a criminal case, he started writing angry letters, and then had his van festooned with posters calling a judge a butcher of the Constitution. The court responded by issuing an order banning him from all state courts, statewide, including their parking areas.
He sued, and the judges involved were held protected by judicial immunity (recognition that if you could sue a judge for a result you think unfair, lawsuits would never end -- although its extension to an order of this type poses some new questions), but the court administrator who signed the order, and the sheriff who presumably would enforce it, were not so immunized.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Cf. domestic violence restraining orders
The Volokh Conspiracy has a great post regarding a (non domestic) restraining order issued in New Mexico. Petitioner alleges that David Letterman is has been causing her distress over the last ten years by inserting "code words" about her into his program, causing bankruptcy, sleeplessness and mental distress. She requests that Letterman be forbidden to think of her. The judge signed the order, albeit without a "think of" provision, and set hearing for January 12.
Upon being questioned by the media, the judge assured them that he had read the application before issuing the order. Personally, if I was him, I'd rather have people think me incompetent than insane.
Good comments, too, on how easy it is to get a domestic violence order, and a case where a secretary simply opened the order to the signature page and the judge signed it, without reading what he'd signed, let along the petition. As commentors note, the judges are scared that if they refuse an order, and anything happens, their name will be in the papers, whereas if they issue every single one, there is no risk.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (0)
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)
Poll of academic types
Todd Zywicki, on the Volokh Conspiracy, links to a pdf of a survey of political attitudes of over 1200 academics. As would be expected, (1) they are overwhelmingly left and Democrat and (2) this has increased significantly since 1970. (Surveys in 1972 indicated Demos outnumbered Repubs in academia by 3.5 to 1; this study indicates today it's 8 to 1).
The survey appraised left-right by asking whether respondents favored or disfavored certain legislative measures. Strongly support = 1, strongly oppose = 5, so the lower the score the more the support.
The most striking response was related to laws restricting gun ownership. Demo faculty gave that a 1.3 (meaning virtually all "strongly support" it) and the minority Repub faculty gave it 3.14 (basically a tie).
Compare that to support for laws against heroin, cocaine and hard drugs. Demos gave them 2.3, Repubs 2.0, basically both giving mild support.
Permalink · Academic treatment · Comments (0)
NRA on Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act
From Eric Larson:
NRA supports H.R. 2088/amnesty legislation
Posted By: Eric M. Larson
Date: 12/20/05 18:01
The NRA is doing something for the Class III community. An article entitled "NRA Supports House Legislation To Protect Gun-Owing Veterans," on page 75 of the January 2006 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN gets this legislative word out to, what...some 3.5 million or so people? That's impressive.
The article discusses H.R. 2088, the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act of 2005, which would provide a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members could register firearms acquired overseas between June 26, 1934 and October 31, 1968. The bill provides that "in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary the attorney general shall accept as true and accurate any affidavit, document, or other evidence submitted by an individual to establish that such firearm meets the requirements" under H.R. 2088.
Read that: " . . . shall accept . . . " language. In other words, no arbitrary victimization by ATF or anybody else in the Government, and an opportunity to preserve valuable historical artifacts that are, to many families, irreplaceable heirlooms symbolizing service to the United States in time of war or conflict.
It isn't just a blurb of an article, either---it is 5" of text on the ILA Report pages, or roughly 1/3 of a page.
The article, which is based largely on an earlier press release this year by the bill's Congressional sponsor, Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada), concludes:
"NRA members are encouraged to contact their representatives and ask them to support N.R. 2088."
I'd say the NRA has just done quite a bit for the NFA community.
Permalink · National Firearms Act
How things are done in Washington
Saw some footage of a protest the other day, and it reminded me of the days when I worked in Interior Dept's legal shop. The Park Service attorneys were across the hall, and we often lunched together.
One day their conversation went like this: "It's all worked out. The protestors will come in as part of a White House tour group. They'll send ten, perhaps twelve. At 9:15 they leave the tour group and go onto the White House lawn and sit down. At 9:30, Secret Service will tell them to leave, and four will refuse, the others will return to the group. At about 9:40 the four will be arrested, booked, and released."
I was astonished ... how could you predict these events, down to the minute? The Parks attorneys explained that in a DC protest of this type, all the details were negotiated in advance between the protestors and the government. It made it more convenient for everyone. The government tried to dicker them down on how many would stay and be arrested (less work for the agents), and they tried to dicker the government up on how long a time window between refusal to leave and arrest. There might be other terms to be worked out as well. But this way the media could be notified to show up at 9:30 for photos, or earlier for the story. If you didn't coordinate -- why, what if the media showed up and security was shorthanded and couldn't make arrests for another hour? Or someone threw the timing off and arrested before the media showed up? Or somebody got hardnosed and instead of book and release, actually popped the protestors in jail? Much better to reach agreement in advance. Besides, by scheduling early in the day you ensure that the reporters have time to write the story.
I remembered reading a WashPo article on an AIDS protest where the police wore rubber gloves in picking up the protestors, and the protestors were angry because that wasn't part of the deal, leaving me wondering what was the "deal." That was it -- the negotiations hadn't mentioned gloves, and the protestors thought it spoiled the photos' intended impact. (I seem to recall that the police objected in turn that the protestors were not supposed to lie down and require carrying, as they did).
So the next time you see a DC protest (a non-rowdy one, anyway), remember it may have been negotiated out down to how many get arrested and the precise time at which it occurs.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (2)
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)
Interesting idea -- a CCW undershirt
That sums it up. For LEOs, it can also be made with handcuff pouch.
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)
Off topic, but interesting
Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish Moslem author, has a very interesting post entitled What Would The Caliph Do?" The terrorist movement has as one of its objects the re-establishment of the Caliphate, and Akyol points out that the last Caliphs were actually very pro-American. His brief discussion of history at the end is interesting as well (The abolition of the caliphate, and subsequent secularization of Turkey, led directly to the conflict with the Kurds, and the resurgence of Wahhabism, which undlies the beliefs of the current terrorists).
Demos backing away from gun issue
An interesting article on how Democrats are realizing that their support for gun laws costs them critical votes. Strange to see this in the Boston Globe.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
And Brady weighs in...
The Brady Campaign has predictably endorsed proposals to make the N.Y. gun laws even stricter.
So let's see... they just want moderate, sensible laws, but support the DC near-total ban, and think New York's laws are too loose.
Actually, take a look at their mission statement. They are "are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence" and "believe" that this can be "achieved without banning all guns." The only limit they put on seeking zero gun violence is that it may not require a total ban on all firearms. But even that is expressed as a belief that they could achieve the goal short of that, not as a committment to refrain from pushing that far.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
NYC Mayor blames NRA
New York CIty mayor Michael Bloomberg has blamed the NRA for shooting deaths of two officers. Nevermind that the city, and the state, have strict firearms laws, those of Pennsylvania and Virginia aren't up to his standards, and that must be why the laws don't work. The one gun the article mentions as having been traced was stolen, in Florida, so exactly how stricter laws would have affected this is not very clear.
I always found this interesting in debates. The other side will contend (1) gun laws won't be evaded, because murders are crimes of passion where the offender doesn't plan in advance to evade the law, but (2) gun laws must be strict nationwide, because offenders will travel hundreds of miles in advance to evade local laws.
Permalink · NRA · 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)
Documentaries
In a bit of utterly shameless self-promotion, might I suggest as stocking stuffers three documentaries starring ... myself. "Fahrenhype 9/11" is a really professional demolition of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"Michael Moore Hates America" also takes on Moore, but uses humor as its tool. I found it quite amusing. The plot is their attempts to interview Moore (who goes to great lengths to hide from any possibly hostile interviews, down to refusing to give out where his studio is actually located, and using a mail depot as its address). I particularly liked the scene where they talk to the mail depot, discover that the depot will notify Moore's shop immediately if anything perishable is delivered ... so they go out and get a big bunch of roses, deliver that with a sweetheart card addressed to Moore and asking if he'll give them an interview now.
Finally, radio and TV host Larry Elder's "Michael and Me" started out as a rebuttal to Moore, but evolved into a broader pro-gun documentary. He must have invested a fortune in it, as it was shot on film rather than video (which increases materials and editing costs by a factor of ten or so).
Permalink · Personal · Comments (0)
Dealing with IEDs
Just in case any readers have connections with DARPA or suchlike, I'll post an email I sent to the Marine Corps lab--
From what I hear, many of the improvised explosive devices use cellphones as detonators.
Most electronic receivers put out a radio frequency field, due to the necessity to "mix" frequencies up and down (it's often better to discriminate between signals at one frequency range, then take it back down before amplifying). Thus even a receiver transmits, albeit faintly. That's how police are able to have "radar detector detectors" that spot when a driver goes by with a radar detector operational
in his car. The police detector picks up radiation emitted by the driver's radar detector. That's also why the airlines make passengers shut down cell phones, laptops and ordinary radios during takeoff.
I don't know if cellphones radiate a more powerful signal, so the network knows where you are when a call comes through to you. They might keep track of your location, or might query the entire network when a call is received.
Might it be possible to build a cellphone detector? The range might be improved with a yagi or other directional antenna, which would also let you judge which direction is the cellphone.
It could be mounted on a remote control vehicle (heck, even one of the fancier remote control toy cars) to probe ahead, or to approach a suspicious package, in which event the range need only be a few feet. It could relay back by radio its findings, or if designed on the cheap, just light up a light to show cell phone presence. I suspect these could be made in quantity for fifty dollars or so.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (6)
Colt v. Bushmaster lawsuit
A Federal Magistrate has issued a recommended decision (it has to be reviewed by the District Judge) in a lawsuit between Colt and Bushmaster (pdf file).
A quick read of the 70 page opinion indicates Colt is suing over trademark and related doctrines, regarding Bushmaster's use of terms such as "M4", "AR-15," etc. The magistrate recommends ruling in favor of Bushmaster on most of the suit, on grounds that the terms have become common usage (and M4 is a term assigned by the government). Colt also asserts a sort of "look and feel" argument regarding design of the M-16 and AR-15. The magistrate rejects that for a number of reasons (the look and feel must not be related to function, but to appearance, etc.). The Magistrate does allow one claim to go forward, related to false advertising (Bushmaster's statements that it hold government contracts and makes to mil-spec).
There's also an interesting legal history of past disputes over the M-16 and M4, how the M4 contract came to be, etc. (Although the discussion may be the official and somewhat sanitized one: I've heard it said that Colt was outbid on the M-16 contract, and for political reasons was then awarded one, sole source (no competitive bidding) for the M4, which is essentially an M-16.
[Thanks to Mark Gruver for the tip]
Permalink · shooting · 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)
Marksmanship in Monrovia
The latest marksmanship competitions in street fighting in Monrovia apparently feature rules that forbid use of sights, taking a firing stance, taking cover, or shooting from the shoulder. Or maybe even from the hip. The preferred stance appears to be holding the rifle sideways over the shooter's head. (Hat tip to Nancy Norell).
I suppose it does keep the casualty rates down, since someone can only get hit if they have very bad luck. (Which may actually be the unspoken purpose... it's been noted that even in the 18th century very few bayonet charges led to use of cold steel. One side or the other backed down and ran off before it got to that. This may be a variant: shoot a lot of ammo, look aggressive, and the other side bails out. Actually start shooting them, and they may do the same to you, and there will be a pile of bodies).
[UPDATE: I suspect that the "gangsta" sideways hold is mostly movie hype -- I recall hearing that it was used on some movie, and after that street thugs thought it was the stylish way to shoot. I can only guess that it might have some slight utility if the shooter had a pistol and didn't know a real shooting grip. Under those conditions, the natural (and wrong) grip tends to throw the shot to the right, assuming a right handed shooter. Turning the gun sideways would tend to throw it up. Since human beings (other than Michael Moore) are taller than they are wide, a shot too high is more likely to hit than a shot too far right. Whether the same holds true is an untrained rifle shooter I'd doubt, since with a rifle the heavier firearm doesn't move very much during the instant between when the trigger releases and when the bullet exits the barrel).
The problem with gripping a pistol is that the natural grip (owing the shape of our hand and fingers) has the gun pointing about 30-45 degrees to the right, and then wrist then cocking to point it forward. The finger compresses the trigger, and the gun is pressed back into the ball of the thumb. When the trigger releases the ball of the thumb presses forward and in that instant the gun is pushed to the right. One of the first bits of handgun marksmanship training is to grip the gun so that it is a natural extension of the arm, which requires that the trigger be pulled with the last portion of the finger, rather than the stronger intermediate portion. Then, at the moment of trigger release, any movement is straight ahead.]
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
Bad week for animal rights extremists
Cam Edwards reports that four animal rights types were arrested for hunter harrassment in New Jersey. Added to the six federal arrests for eco-terrorism in the Northwest, it makes it a bad week for animal rights extremists.
A friend of mine had the best response to hunter harrassment. The friend pointed out the harrassers rarely know much about the outdoors, and often wear shorts, short-sleeve shirts, etc. So as they follow you you cut through the worst brambles you can find. After they are quite lacerated, you take them back into the most isolated, confusing terrain around. Then you lose them. They haven't mapped the course or scouted it in advance: they were counting on you to lead them back. With any luck, they'll have an authentic overnight wilderness experience, without sleeping bags, food, or water.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
Canadian handgun ban proposed
David Kopel, over at Volokh Conspiracy, notes that Canada's possibly outgoing (and thoroughly corrupt) Liberal government is proposing a handgun ban. He also notes that members of Parliament had previously been saying that registration wouldn't lead to confiscation, and even that registration might improve the value of private firearms.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
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)
British police blog
While on the topic of law enforcement, I just came across a British policeman's blog.
His entries confirm what Joyce Malcolm has told me regarding their nanny-state. Apparently an officer has to be very careful what he puts in his reports (as in avoiding naming suspects unless there is sufficient evidence).
He comments on assault against officers over there: "None of the officers in Newtown got murdered over the weekend, but 3 out of 10 (1 female officer) sustained minor injuries at the hands of drunken idiots who seem to think that people in scruffy flourescent jackets are fair game. I was single crewed because the nightshift was odd numbered (five as opposed to six officers). Would I have felt safer with a Glock and an AR15? Yes. Would people have magically sobered up and gone home when faced with the business end of a shotgun? Yes."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
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)
South Africa
South Africa is having serious trouble with its gun permit system.
(I seem to recall hearing about this before--the requirement is for firearms training, and there are only a handful of certified instructors, spread out all over the country).
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
Canadian official hot at NRA
The Canadian deputy prime minister is complaining that the Canadian Shooting Sports Association asked the NRA for organizational advice. Touchy, touchy.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (1)
Judge Weinstein lets suit against gun mfr proceed
The NY Times reports that Judge Weinstein has refused to dismiss NY City's suit against gun manufacturers. (BTW, as far as bias goes, I believe he's the one who, in one trial against a gun mfr, agreed that plaintiffs had not proven a case at close of their evidence, then outlined what case he thought they shouldproven, and told them he was reopening their case so they could prove it.
The rationale appears to be that the gun mfr liability protection statute makes an exception where the gun sale violated the law, and the allegation here is that the sales in general violated NY's nuisance law. I gather that the sales complained of did not occur in NY, but involved sales in other states where the eventually wound up in NY. I'm not entirely clear how a NY nuisance law can be applied to events that do not occur in NY.
The article is in extended remarks, below (thanks to John Hosford for the tip).
Continue reading "Judge Weinstein lets suit against gun mfr proceed"
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (3)
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)
Reviving the militia -- new technology
(Via Instapundit)--Wired has an interesting report on uses of the internet to notify people and schools of events around them, ranging from disasters to 911 dispatches. The ideas (already in place in some locales) enable you to be informed, with customizable standards (severity, your location -- you might want to hear of minor stuff within a mile of you, and only major stuff beyond that).
Add in a little connectivity and organization, and you might just see a high-tech militia system reviving.
Permalink · militia · Comments (1)
4th Circuit on "innocent possession" defense
Via the interesting and new Appellate Decisions blog:
The Fourth Circuit has just handed down US v. Gilbert (04-5004, Nov. 28, 2005), refusing to recognize an "innocent possession" defense to felon-in-possession charges where possession was " transitory and without illicit motive." Gilbert, a felon, claimed that he found the gun while on the way to work and meant to turn it in to the police. (As the court notes at the end of the opinion, his explanation is a bit fishy).
The Court notes that felon-in-possession requires only a "knowing" state of mind, not a "willful" one like much of the rest of the Gun Control Act (after its 1986 amendments). It refers to a prior decision that suggested there might be a justification defense where the felon was under imminent threat of death or injury and possessed a gun only to defend himself.
Sounds like a split in the circuits -- it notes that DC circuit has recognized innocent possession, while the 7th and 10th, and now the 4th, have refused.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (0)
Member of ACLU ... and of NRA
Margaret Romao Toigo has an interesting article in blogcritics: "Why I Love the ACLU in Spite of its Warts -- With Hugs and Kisses to the NRA." I wouldn't agree that the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment is "neutral" -- it's a waffling anti-individual rights one-- but the article is worth the read.
BTW, it is interesting that the ACLU's position has been watered down over the years. I can remember when it was solid "collective rights." Today it's that the right is " primarily a collective one" -- note the qualifier "primarily" -- that it does not confer "an unlimited right" (hard to name one substantive constitutional limit that does).
One friend, who travels in ACLU national circles, said that the reason ACLU is so squeamish is that if they recognized an individual right (as all the big names in American constitutional law do these days) a lot of their donors might back out. Against that would be the point that they backed the Nazi march in Skokie many years ago. But then they took a BIG hit in membership and donations over that one, and haven't repeated the experience in the last twenty years or so.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (2)
Ithica guns goes on auction block
Ithica's last assets were sold at a liquidation auction this week.
Florida self-defense bills spreading
Earlier, I noted that a variation of the Florida "castle law" had been introduced in Michigan.
Word now is that a Mississippi shooting of a burglar has prompted introduction of such a bill in that state. The homeowner fired through a door and hit a fellow trying to break in (his mother denies that he would have done such a thing, but since he had a record for burglary, theft, and drugs, and was wearing a ski mask while trying to entire in the early morning hours, there is a logical deduction to be made here).
NRA also reports that such a measure is being introduced in Oklahoma.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Clayton Cramer on Tacoma mall shooting
Clayton Cramer has some thoughts on an aspect of the Tacoma mall shooting -- there was an armed CCW permitee within firing range, but he hesitated to fire. Clayton sees this (and his own experiences) as suggestive that CCW holders tend to be all too responsible, rather than trigger-happy.