« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 2006
People who need sense knocked into them
"After her 11-year-old son was suspended for twice bringing a loaded handgun to school, Linnea C. Holdren, 43, said the matter was pretty much beyond her control. "I can't lock up his guns," she told police. "They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them." (The boy was expelled in January, and Holdren, who is a teacher at her son's Shickshinny, Pa., elementary school, has been charged with felony endangerment.)"
Courtesy of News of the Weird. Other news reports note that her statement to police came after they offered to give her a trigger lock.
Let's get one thing straight, teach:: Dr. Spock was NOT cut out to be a firearms safety instructor.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Alito confirmed
It's now Justice Alito. Vote was 58-42. Schumer is complaining that he wishes the nominee were a "uniter" rather than a "divider," although it's hard to see how a Supreme Court Justice can be either.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Super Bowl and self-defense
An article on the planned Super Bowl in Detroit quotes a resident:
"City officials say Super Bowl visitors should not be intimidated by the statistics, saying downtown is relatively safe.
But that is small comfort in outlying neighborhoods.
Workman points to a bus stop at the corner where a young man was recently shot to death. She is disturbed by the comings and goings at a reputed drug house next door and by the hostile-looking youths who hang around outside the liquor store across the street.
She and her neighbors say they cannot count on police to help in this part of the city.
"You learn how to adapt and keep you a gun," Lauderdale said."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Another tale of Britain
A lady teacher who was plagued by thugs dared to fire an air gun at them.
Result: a sentence of three years' imprisonment (reduced on appeal to 36 days), and a firing.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
American Chronicle article
Jeff Knox has a perceptive article on the politics of the gun issue in The American Chronicle.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Speaking of "if I defend myself, the criminal will just take it away"...
I found a link to the sequence (animated GIF) on the security camera, where the robber manages to throw his gun onto the counter, and the victim grabs it. Link.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Messy case
A Florida homeowner has been acquitted of trying to kill a police officer.
The only good news is that the officer was wearing a bullet-resistant vest and got a bad bruise from the shot.
Beyond that, there's plenty of blame to go around. Officers heard a rock hit their car around 1 AM and went looking for the thrower. (Given what followed, it is reasonable to deduce that they were angry and not exactly thinking straight).
They climbed over the defendant's 7 foot fence and went poking in his backyard. One entered his screened porch (an imporant detail, I think). Others pounded on his door, awakening the homeowner. He'd been vandalized before. He went to the back where an officer had entered his screened porch. The officer pointed his flashlight in his eyes (standard tactic to ensure you can see and the other person cannot). Startled, he shot, and hit the officer on his vest. The prosecutor charged attempted murder of an LEO, and the jury found otherwise.
I can't say as I would encourage either (a) shooting thru a door when the most you know is someone is on your back porch at 1 AM and shining a flashlight into your eyes or (b) climbing over 7 foot fences into a stranger's backyard at 1 AM, pounding on his door, shining a flashlight into his eyes and expecting that your relationship is not going to go sour in a hurry.
I think the entry onto the porch may have been critical, since a porch with a door is part of the residence (special rules may apply where you have to enter the porch before you can knock or ring a doorbell). In this situation, the officer (or perhaps we could say unknown intruder) was thus in a place where he shouldn't have been, and (in legal theory, anyway) inside the residence. If he'd just been standing in the backyard, the jury's view might have been different.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
If a criminal uses a gun, the victim will just take it away...
When I interviewed Prof. Gary Kleck for the documentary, he observed that there is some manner of urban legend about people using firearms in self-defense, and having the criminal take the gun from them. He hadn't found a single case of this, and guessed that it might arise from cases of law enforcement being shot with their own gun -- since LEOs are often forced to grapple with a suspect, or escort them around, while their gun is holstered and thus available for a grab.
Clayton Cramer has just blogged a case where the victim took the gun from a robber. The robber stopped to rifle the victim's pockets, and the victim got the gun away.
The other day I saw a store security video, pretty funny, where the robber comes in and presents the gun in an overhand sweep, with the other hand coming up to make it a two-handed stance. He does it a bit too dramatically, and apparently gripped the gun too loosely, so the gun popped out of his hand and landed on the counter. The clerk moved quick and grabbed it, and the robber turned and ran for his life.
I'd suspect that "victim grabs gun" is a lot more frequent than "criminal gets gun away," since (1) a victim needs worry about taking on the criminal, while the criminal has to be concerned about retaining control, getting the loot, and watching over his shoulder for police and (2) the victim is rarely drunk, high, or really stupid.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Kerry on Alito filibuster
In the opening move of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, John Kerry announced (on Kos) that he supported a filibuster of the Alito confirmation, which he argues will mark a "radical ideological shift" in the Supreme Court. Here's another article on his call.
Kerry's statement that Alito was nominated because "Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet Miers--a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked--President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands," puts me in mind of the remark that all the Left had to do to keep Alito off the Court, 100% certain, was to endorse Miers. Instead -- how many times did we hear (and with justice) the term "cronyism" invoked?
The comments on Kos are interesting, too. If the intent was to position Kerry for an appeal to the Left, without actually having to risk a fillibuster, it may not work out as planned. Kos's readers are pumped up on the idea. On the other hand, the idea may be to make a gesture, accept a quick cloture vote to end the fillibuster, and roll over. Kerry gets publicity and appeal to the Left, the Demo senators looking at re-election in Bush-leaning states get to vote against the filibuster and seem more conservative, and both go away happy.
[UPDATE: the question was how Hilary Clinton would go. Back Kerry in an appeal to the Left (at the cost of appearing to follow your likely rival) or oppose as part of her moves to try to sound less Left. She's chosen the former.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Arizona bill modelled on Florida Self-Defense statute
The Arizona Senate is proposing self-defense legislation modeled on that of Florida. Different bills would either (a) establish "no retreat" or (b) put the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense when it is alleged. Prosecutors are objecting, of course.
(I'm not sure either marks a major change in the law. On the first, present Ariz. law simply requires that the force used be "reasonably necessary." Earlier caselaw had refused to impose a retreat requirement. On the other hand, I suppose it's open to argue that availability of retreat made force not "reasonably necessary," thus bringing it in by the back door. With the other, if I remember correctly, the defendant has the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (it's more likely than not to have been the case), whereupon the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Google China's censorship and the right to arms
I can't say if this is significant, but--
If you Google "right to arms" on standard Google, you get over 37,000 hits. The first page has eight references to the Second Amendment, seven of them supporting an individual right. The lead relevant article is Glenn Reynold's argument that arms ownership ought to be the next international right. Second page has nine results relevant to an individual right.
Google the same phrase on Google.cn and you get all of 13 hits. About half relate to coats of arms, and the remainder are citations to Uviller's anti-individual right book.
I tried "freedom of speech" on google.cn and curiously got nearly five million hits.
[UPDATE: commenters have tried the same, and gotten tens of thousands of hits. A few hours ago, I tried "right to arms" again (with quotation marks in), and got about 3,500. Then after the first comment, a few hours ago,
I tried that again, and got 35,200. (I know, because I've got two computers here, and left the other one running). I just tried it now and got 37,100.
So I tried "freedom of speech," which some hours ago got just under five million. Right now it's under six million -- 5,860,0000. Maybe it's a new system, and the search engines are adding to it?]
Ah, here is the entry on the "history" pulldown of my browser. The enitirty of the search (12 rather than 13 hits by my count) is given in the extended entry.
Continue reading "Google China's censorship and the right to arms"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)
Seegers v. Gonzales cert denial
The Supreme Court has denied cert. (declined to take the case) of Seegers v. Gonzales. That was one of two challenges to the DC handgun ban, and the DC Circuit upheld a dismissal for lack of standing (i.e., no right to sue to challenge a statute, absent prosecution under it).
The other challenge, Parker v. DC, remains pending in the DC Circuit.
[Update: Alan Gura, counsel for the Parker plaintiffs, writes:
We're currently awaiting a scheduling order in Parker. Recall that we made a much better record on standing.
The appellees' attempts to dismiss the Parker appeal on standing grounds was denied by the D.C. Circuit in November. While standing remains an issue in the case, the court has also sought briefing on the merits.
Stay tuned.]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Sen. Judiciary Comm. passes Alito; floor debate tommorrow
On a straight party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Judge Alito's confirmation. Senate floor debate should begin tommorrow, with vote (absent filibuster) by end of week.
I wonder if the opposition will renew its interesting pair of arguments: (1) Alito doesn't have enough respect for individual liberty and (2) he should defer more to Congress... when it restricts individual liberties.
[UPDATE: the NY Times is calling for a fillibuster, admitting that it would fail, and probably hurt the Democrats, but arguing that Alito's confirmation would be even worse.]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Italy enacts self-defence law
Italy has enacted a law authorizing use of arms in self-defense. The news articles don't make clear just how it changes the law. The New Zealand Herald says "The measure was put forward after a series of headline-grabbing cases in which shopkeepers were accused of manslaughter for killing their robbers and applies only if there is a "risk of aggression" for the victim of the break-in and no sign that the intruder is backing down."
[Hat tip to, in order of appearance, to Bruce Stern, and Don Kates].
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Brady Campaign getting ever more desperate
Wyoming is proposing a no-retreat law similar to that of Florida, and the Brady Campaign press release sounds rather desperate. Now it describes the Florida law: "alternatively as the "Shoot First law," "Wild, Wild West law," or "Make my Day" law" (make up your mind!) and says it "made Florida a virtual laughingstock." Then it cites to the duty to retreat, from "AmJur." AmJur is an ancient legal encyclopia--I assume they meant AmJur 2d.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
9th Cir: possession of AW isn't a "crime of violence"
Via the Volokh Conspiracy : the 9th has ruled, Judge Kozinski writing, that a California conviction for possessing an assault rifle is not a prior "crime of violence" for purposes of enhancing federal sentencing. pdf file.
Defendant was later convicted for being a felon in possession, and the trial court roughly doubled his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, on grounds that he had the prior. Crime of violence is defined in the guidelines to include a crime that had a serious risk of inflicting bodily harm, and the 9th had previously ruled that possession of sawed-off shotguns and silencers met this test. Kozinski distinguishes the earlier cases on the grounds that the firearms were unusual and unlikely to have legal uses, whereas "assault rifles" can have such.
(Fn. 3 is funny -- the National FIrearms Act of course defines "firearm" to be full auto, sawed-offs, silencers and a few other items only. Fn. 3 quotes a 5th Circuit case: "“In short, the term [firearm] as used in the Act bears little if any correspondence to that in common usage, much as though the word ‘animal’ were defined in some supposititious National Zoo Act to exclude all mammals, reptiles and birds except lions and tigers, but to include freight trains, teddy bears, feather-boas and halltrees.”
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
Changeover in Canada
In our book on Moore, Jason Clark and I explore how every cause he's endorsed (Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc., etc.) goes down in flames.
We could add another -- on the eve of the Canadian elections, Moore endorsed the Liberal Party, and the Conservatives went on to win their first election in 18 years.
The Conservatives have proposed ending Canada's expensive gun registryand spend the money on law enforcement.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Brady Campaign active in Washington State
A Brady Campaign press release says that Washington's Senate Judiciary Comm. will hold hearings Tuesday at 3:30 PM on a law to require background checks for gunshow purchases from non-dealers.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)
Gun crime rising in Britain
It's up by around 50%.
Of course, there's only one solution: "There have been widespread calls for tighter gun controls in Britain ..."
The sidebar shows street prices for illegal guns. Heck, they're a lot lower than the prices for legal ones here! Pump shotguns about $30 US, subguns for about $600, Lugers and P38s for around $200. The imaginative ones have apparently found how to convert an air pistol into a functioning .22 revolver.
Interesting events in Wisconsin
In 1998, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that "the people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."
Five years later, in State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis.2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003) [text is in extended remarks below], the state Supreme Court applied it to a CCW charge. Defendant Hamdan was a store owner in a very high-crime area (he'd already been on the receiving end of four robberies), and kept a pistol under the counter. At closing time, he took it into a back room for storage, and at that precise moment officers arrived for a business license check. He popped it into his pocket and came out, and when the officers asked if there was a gun in the store (they later testified that the majority of businesses in the area had one for protection) he said yes and produced it.
He was charged with CCW (Wisconsin caselaw is so broad that "carrying" concealed includes merely having a firearm concealed within reach) and convicted at a trial in which he was not allowed to introduce evidence of his self-defense motives, of crime in and around the store, etc. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the conviction, pointing to the constitutional provision, and the fact that he was on his own property at the time:
"Considering the diminished public interest in applying the CCW statute in the context of Hamdan's conduct, we hold that the State's police power must yield in this case to Hamdan's reasonable exercise of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security. This right, when exercised within one's own business and supported by a factual determination that no unlawful purpose motivated concealment of the weapon, will usually provide a constitutional defense to a person who is charged with violating the CCW statute. Because Hamdan was not permitted to assert this defense, his challenge to the CCW statute was not fully addressed by the circuit court and his conviction under Wis. Stat. § 941.23 was not proper."
The court also noted that the standard rationales for CCW laws (avoid risk of rash violence, put others on notice that a person is armed so they won't start a fight with him, etc) were inapplicable, or only marginally applicable, to a small business owner trying to protect himself. Indeed, putting criminals on notice that the owner is armed and just where the arm is would only give the criminals the advantage. It also noted that the constitutional protection relates to "security," which it said was broader than "self-defense" -- acting in self-defense implies avoiding an immediate threat, whereas being "secure" suggests a general feeling of protection in the long term.
The one problem was that the challenge was as-applied, on the facts. So it didn't lay out a standard of "you can carry concealed on your own property" but rather if you are charged with CCW under those facts, you can argue to the jury that you had lawful needs to carry, and that open carry was not feasible. The court strongly suggested that the Legislature revisit the law to clear things up.
Wisconsin legislators are now pushing the Personal Protection Act, which provides for CCW licenses. Last session, they passed another bill, SB 214, but it was vetoed. Here's an analysis of the present bill.
Continue reading "Interesting events in Wisconsin"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Bad week for animal right terrorists
The WashPo reports that eleven members of Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have been indicted for federal felonies stemming from arson attacks.
Continue reading "Bad week for animal right terrorists"
Permalink · animal rights and eco-terrorism · Comments (1)
Nice shirts
Article on New York law
Budd Schoeder just pointed out an article in Fordham Urban Law Journal, arguing that the NY laws can be attacked on State constitutional grounds. Apparently the NY courts have stricter standards for delegation of powers to local officials than is the case at the Federal level (where Congress can just about pass a statute that creates a Commission to Do Good and empower it to promulgate such regulations as do good). The author's point is that the NY firearms permits are issued with a requirement of "proper cause," and what constitutes "proper cause" is left entirely to the enforcing officials, whose standards differ widely.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Stolen guns
Criminals use stolen guns (surprise!). So how can antigunners get political capital out of that? Push laws that will punish the theft victim if they fail to report the theft.
Why wouldn't someone report a theft? Well, they'd have a little incentive if anyone cared. Twenty or so years ago I had a pistol stolen from the glove compartment in my VW bug. I called in a report, and it was noted. I pointed out that the glove compartment door was glossy metal, would probably hold great fingerprints. Dust it, get my prints and deduct those, and you have those of the thief. The police said they didn't have enough time. I offered to drive to the central police station and park in their lot, so the fingerprint tech had only to come outside and dust. Naw, they said, the fingerprints will already have "evaporated." Yeah, sure, they evaporate. I gave up.
I'm told that shipments to dealers are often stolen in transit (which screws up recordkeeping and tracing, BTW). So why not crack down? Dealers and gunowners would love it. Shouldn't be too hard to compute out the distribution nodes where guns vanish. Or to park a few radio locators in, say, the buttstock of military-type rifles. Of course that doesn't lead to more legislation -- just to solving the problem.
[UPDATE, response to comment: it was a fingerprint tech with Tucson Police Department who told me the fingerprints would have evaporated (by the next morning, incidentally). It was a pretty clear brush-off. A year or so later I had an attempted breakin, where someone had tried to jimmy open a window. I figured they'd probably left some prints on the glass, but again couldn't convince anyone to dust for them -- they said they'd file the report and that was all they could do. To be fair, in that case I couldn't take the window down to the police station. But I'd have thought a stolen gun was cause enough to dust a car sitting in the police station parking lot!]
ANOTHER UPDATE: Naw, not much odds of civil liability here. Courts have gone against holding law enforcement liable for failure to prevent crime, on the basis that then law enforcement agencies would be liable to countless lawsuits. (I can see that, although in severe cases, such as Warren v. DC -- where a 911 dispatcher promised women that help was on the way, and then didn't even send out a radio report, with result they were subjected to 14 hours of rape and abuse -- you might think they'd recognize an exception).
I played a role in initiating the first successful suit against a parole board that let loose a dangerous guy -- gad, now I forget the case, but it concerned a murderous psychotic who had five psychiatrists opine that he was dangerous, and the parole board, composed of political hacks, let him out anyway, and he went on to commit a few murders in the Brown Fox Tavern. I think his name was Mitchell Blazak, something like that. I was a young pup law student clerking for a firm here, back in 1973 or 74, and got a memo on the case. The attorney wanted to sue the tavern owner for not giving in to the robber's demand, and I thought there was no case there -- no duty to yield to a criminal demand. But the robber's name stood out, and I realized I'd just seen an opinion from a State court upholding his conviction for attempted murder. Pulled out the opinion -- his conviction had been affirmed only a few months before the later robbery -- what gives here? Investigated, and argued to the attorney that there might be a case against the parole board for turning him loose. He went with it, it went to the Ariz. Supreme Court, and they held the parole board might be liable if gross negligence could be proven.
Permalink · contemporary issues
Virginia bill to control any "firearms show"
Virginia Rep. Vivian Watts has introduced House Bill No. 1447.
Existing Virginia law requires the promoter of a "firearms show" to give 30 days' notice to police. "Firearms show" is defined as an exhibition, not on a dealer's premises, conducted "principally" for purposes of showing and selling firearms. HB 1447 would change that to include any gathering of two or more people " in which one of the purposes" is selling firearms. Presumably this is directed at swap meets, although it would also include a yard sale. In fact, it might include any gun sale (since two people have to gather in order to sell anything). The bill would also expand the definition of "promoter" to include not only the person setting up the show, but anyone "inviting others to participate in a firearms show or advertising a firearms show in the Commonwealth."
[Chuckle--when I worked at Interior, Ms. Watt's husband, David, was in our division. And Sen. Carl Levin's wife Barbara was in it, too.]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Search and Seizure case
The Supreme Court just handed down a ruling on a hyper-technical point -- but what happened to the people involved is worth noting, in terms of how easily the government can stomp the innocent.
Appellees ran a home-based software company. Someone stole the husband's credit card number, and used it to subscribe to a child-porn website. Customs Service raided the website, traced credit card numbers used to purchase the child porn, traced the appellees' number, and got a search warrant to raid their home for evidence of the pornography. They seized all of appellees' computer equipment.
No porn was found, of course, but when the computer equipment was returned, several hard drives were kaput, and somehow all data (including software, trade secrets, and account information) had been erased. Appellees had to go out of business. [I'm left wondering how Customs managed to erase all the data, when presumably the first step in investigating the contents for evidence would be to make backup copies -- can't help but wonder if it was intentional, a bit of "I'll teach these people a lesson."]
Having been ruined, for no better reason than that they were victims of identity theft, they sued, but under their first suit (under the Federal Tort Claims Act) the government won dismissal on a legal ground. They filed a second suit, under Bivens constitutional tort theory, and the government tried to get it dismissed under a FTCA provision that says any loss in an FTCA suit is a "complete bar" to any other redress. Fortunately, the government lost, but it took it all the way to the Supremes. I don't even want to think what this couple's legal fees are going to be -- and this involves people who were indisputably innocent of anything!
[Update with regard Steve's comment: yep, I think that's the legal setting (altho I did just skim the legal aspects). Supreme Court ultimately holds that the gov't can't take an appeal while the case is pending (normally you're expected to seek a final resolution of the case before appealling, tho there are exceptions -- and if the gov't had won dismissal, the case would indeed be over and appealable, but it lost the motion so the case went on).
So it's taken a Supreme Court appeal (cost in the tens of thousands, or if contingency fee, plaintiffs' attorney is out tens of thousands of time) just to confirm that yes, plaintiffs have a right to bring suit against the government.
Federal Tort Claims Act is so technical at times -- it's easy to lose what would be a simple case against a non-government abuser -- no way to guess who'll ultimately win.]
Miss. House passes self-defense law
A self-defense bill similar to that of Florida has passed the House in Mississippi.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
NFA record fiasco update
It's been known since the 1970s that BATFE's registrations of NFA firearms (chiefly full-auto and short barrelled rifles and shotguns, taxed and thus registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934) were seriously flawed -- missing files, wrong serial numbers, the accumulation of (today) seventy years of paperwork and file cabinet mistakes. As noted earlier, there's a push on to get the records cleaned up -- which is vital, since "no registration found" means search warrants and indictments.
Over at Subguns, Eric Larson has posted a note that ATF has apparently stopped auditing NFA firearms records during its periodic audits of dealers' records, which he interpets as "stop finding errors!" He notes a report of a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena served on ATFE regarding its records, and suggests contacting your legislators to press for a full investigation. Click on additional data below for his full posting.
Continue reading "NFA record fiasco update"
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (2)
Nebraska online poll
A Nebraska newspaper is running an online poll on "Should the Legislature pass a law allowing concealed weapons?" From that description, it's hard to judge just what is being proposed (or even whether this is a proposal pending). Whatever it is, the ayes are scoring at 93% just now.
Permalink · contemporary issues
Yet another this is pitiful moment
Illinois governor Blagojevich has sent a press release announcing a push for a .50 caliber rifle ban and a state ban on "assault rifles." It's full of bombast and mis-statements, but I found some humor in the Brady spokesman quotation:
"We are grateful for their efforts to keep us safe from the threat posed by weapons with a high capacity magazine, silencer, automatic trigger with a pistol grip and the other dangerous features of such insidious weapons,” said Jennifer Bishop of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence."
Automatic trigger ... a dangerous pistol grip ... silencer ... gad, you'd expect their designated spokesman to know a *little* about what they want to outlaw. But then, apparently neither does the governor, who quotes her.
Seegers v. Gonzales cert decision coming
The Surpeme Court's docket indicates that the Seegers petition for cert. is up for vote at the conference this Friday.
The issue is whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the DC handgun ban, absent their prosecution under it. A pdf file of the petition for cert. is available on Steve Halbrook's webpage.
(Standing to sue, absent prosecution, is one of the more remarkably messed up areas of the law. You'd think it'd be enough to prove that you want to do something, a criminal law forbids it, and you can argue the law is unconstitutional. But it never works out that simply, and there are cases (a) saying you never, or rarely, have standing absent at least a one-on-one clear threat to prosecute if you do it, and (b) cases allowing suit where there is no such threat, and indeed where the law in question has never been enforced).
Permalink · Supreme Court caselaw · Comments (1)
Another "this is pitiful moment"
In New Jersey, the Million Moms March and Brady Campaign cancelled a protest because the weather was too cold.
Oh--and the story notes the organizer is a convicted sex offender. Here's another story on his background. And another, where he complains of the injustice of it all.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (3)
Street crime in Great Britain
From the Daily Mail [Great Britain]:
"Ordinary people should carry weapons if they want to be safe on Britain's crime-ridden streets, the father of murdered lawyer Tom Ap Rhys Pryce's fiancee said last night.
In a bitter denunciation of the lack of police officers on the beat and the lenience of the courts, Rod Eastman said it was better to risk arrest for carrying an offensive weapon than risk being murdered by muggers."
[Hat tip to Dan Gifford]
A woman, a batterer and a gun
In the San Fran Chronicle, Joan Ryan has a piece on a spousal battery victim, in hiding from her ex, who got caught carrying illegally and wound up serving time (and losing the right to possess a firearm, even in her house).
"She now has no protection. (I wonder whether San Francisco voters considered domestic violence situations when they voted in November to ban all handguns and what consequences women like Rebecca might pay.)"
[Hat tip to Budd Shroeder]
Permalink · arms law victims · Comments (2)
The Man Who Conned Oprah
The Smoking Gun has a new section on The Man Who Conned Oprah.
It seems that James Frey's book, "A Million Little Pieces," charmed her and made its way into her book club. In it, the author portrays his years as an alcoholic, junkie, criminal, and outcast, detailing among other things his criminal career of drug busts, melees with officers, jail terms, etc..
TSG's investigation indicates ... he made it up. His criminal record consists of a DUI arrest (for which he served no jail time, and the police report describes him as cooperative). A drug ring in which he was supposedly involved turns out to be some college students who plead out to misdemeanor pot charges (and he's not mentioned in the investigation, to boot).
His attorney threatened to sue TSG ... which would raise the interesting question of whether you can commit defamation by DENYING that a person is a cop-assaulting drug-dealer, and asserting he was actually an unoffensive, rather popular, student.
Permalink · celebrities · Comments (1)
Right to Bear Arms -- in Iraq
Iraq the Model reports on the situation over there:
"Meanwhile, there are some good news coming from Anbar.
Al-Qaeda is apparently being chased down and confronted by Iraqis in Anbar and Samarra according to a report from al-Sabah.
Mohammed al-Ubaidi is a citizen of Anbar who took part in a battle against al-Qaeda fighters said that people were enraged by the attacks that kill civilians in Anbar and other provinces and therefore have decided to form squads from the residents to rid Anbar from the foreign terrorists.
The reports mentions that several tribes’ sheikhs had a meeting in the home of a sheikh of the Dulaim tribe where they pledged to fight al-Qaeda and throw them out of the province. There are also news that some 120 al-Qaeda members have already fled outside Iraq after a series of battles between their cells and the residents of Ramadi and other towns and suburbs of Anbar.
According to the same report, similar measures are being taken by the residents in Samarra and have succeeded in forcing foreign terrorists out of their city."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Alito's a shooter
At least he pops clay pigeons. (Via The Bitch Girls),
Also from TBGs--Illinois has a paperwork tie up that's preventing processsing Firearm Owner ID cards (i.e., gun possession permits) before their renewal date. Possession of a gun without the permit is a felony. Altho the lack of permits is the government's fault, the most they're saying is that law enforcement will have discretion whether to arrest.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
UN conference
The agenda, and proposals, from the UN's 2006 Small Arms Review Conference are available here.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
Sideline on Ted Kennedy on Alito
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki suggests that Kennedy's questioning of Alito regarding Concerned Alumni of Princeton resembles McCarthy's attempts at guilt by association.
There's another parallel. Kennedy argues the committee must subpoena the papers of William Rusher, who was prominent in the group, from the Library of Congress:
"And I asked Senator Specter make a formal committee request for the documents in the possession of the Library of Congress as part of the William Rusher papers. Mr. Rusher was the publisher of the National Review, was an active founder and leader of CAP.
Do you have any hesitancy or reason for us not to look at those documents?"
Kennedy then gets into an argument with Chairman Spector over whether he can get a committee vote to issue the subpoena, "my request is that we go into the executive session for the sole purpose of voting on a subpoena for these records that are held over at the Library of Congress — that purpose and that purpose only.
And if I’m going to be denied that, I’d want to give notice to the chair that you’re going to hear it again and again and again and we’re going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution."
Later: "I wonder what these papers contain, and what the Republicans do not want us to see. Why they want to just, uh, rush this nominee through.”
Nice bit of grandstanding. A five minute Google search turned up the index to the William Rusher Papers at the Library of Congress. The index notes things like "The microfilm in these papers was produced by the office of the National
Review and is included in the collection as its own series. It is available for research use in the Manuscript Reading Room." There's also over two hundred boxes of hardcopy.
The only restrictions I can find on access pertain to his personal diaries, which cannot be released until 50 yrs after his death.
So it looks as if Senator Kennedy need only walk across the street to the LoC and take a look.
[UPDATE: I guess they figured it out. Bench Memosis reporting that Senate Judiciary Committee staffers reviewed the relevant portion of the Rusher papers at the LoC and found not even a mention of Alito, and that the New York Times reviewed them two months ago and couldn't find anything either. Not much basis for Kennedy's grandstanding over needing a subpoena to get at those secret files].
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)
News from Switzerland
1. The Swiss Army is now letting members who have completed their service take home the latest assault rifle, the SIG 90, provided they pay to make it semiauto only. Previously they were only allowed to take home the earlier SIG 57.
2. The Swiss cabinet has recommended to the legislature that they conform to the European Union's Schengen accord, by instituting a system where all firearms acquisitions are reported to the government, and apparently some manner of permit is required (although the grounds for issuance sound broad). Enough signatures have been collected in opposition to require the matter to be put to a public referendum, and opposition is forming.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
New Lott article on internat'l comparisons
John Lott has an article in the NY Sun, which goes into gun bans in other countries and the rising homicide rates that followed.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
Light blogging till Wednesday
I'll be out of town until next Wednesday, blogging light if at all until then...
Permalink · Personal · Comments (1)
Joyce-sponsored antigun group in Ohio
Chad Baus of the Buckeye Firearms Ass'n has a detailed discussion of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence and how it works to create a "phantom public." Very interesting set of tactics. Apparently it's a tiny organization, a fistful of staffers supported by grants from Joyce Foundation. But the media promotes it as if it were a large public body. Then each of the staffers, when testifying, will identify themselves, not as its staff, but as representing some other segment of the public (doctors, church organizations, whatever is applicable to their general line of work). In the end, three or four people can make themselves sound like a large segment of the public (it helps, of course, that the media plays along with the game).
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
Are remarks about an attorney's oral argument actionable?
While doing a bit of research, I came across an unusual, and rather humorous in retrospect, 7th Circuit opinion.
Facts: back in the early 80s, a suit was brought challenging a city ban on gun dealerships, alleging various grounds including the Second Amendment. It ultimately made its way to the 7th Circuit, which (as would have been expected a quarter century ago) ruled against plaintiffs.
Following it, the Second Amendment Foundation's publication had an article stating that three attorneys were to argue in the Circuit, court had allowed 30 minutes for argument per side, and the agreement was that the first was to use not more than 6 minutes. Unfortunately, the article continued, he had used 13 minutes, throwing the timekeeping into disarray, and was rambling and often pointless.
The first attorney sued for defamation, seeking $5 million in actuals and $10 million in punitives. Okay.... As might be expected, he lost.
This is the first time I've come across an attorney suing over a description of his oral argument, and arguing the case in the same court in which the argument was delivered. (Tactical tip for those who haven't been in the appellate trenches: a three-way division of time, let alone of a mere 30 minutes of time, does require almost superhuman time discipline on the part of the first two speakers -- and leaves you open to judges on the other side trying to tie up the first two with questions in order to throw the third advocate off).
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Wrap of gun issues in Congress, 2005
Over at Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has a wrapup of 2005 Congressional issues relating to firearms. As might be expected, it was a very good year.
One comment is worthy of note. Dave listed repeal of the DC handgun ban as a hope for 2006, and attorney Alan Gura commented:
"I would hope that "repeal of the D.C. ban on handgun possession and on possession of long guns in a condition usable for home defense" will not be necessary, as these laws should be struck down in Parker v. District of Columbia, D.C. Circuit No. 04-7041. I look forward to arguing the case on the merits sometime in the coming year. http://www.gurapossessky.com/newsandresources.htm"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Miller v. US & its use of Virginia militia statutes
Rudy DiGiacinto, founder of www.virginia1774.org, has established an interesting webpage relating to Miller's citation of Virginia militia statutes, and its conclusion that the Court could not take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun was a militia-type weapon.
[Legal detail: normally you have to provide evidence in order to prove a fact in court. There is an exception for cases where the court can take "judicial notice" that a fact is true. This is limited to facts that are well known and objectively demonstrable -- that June 14 fell on a Tuesday, Richmond is the capital of Virginia, etc. Here, I think Rudy's demonstration that one could show, from original and available documents, that a blunderbusses were used as military weapons, might pass the test. You might still need some testimony that a short-barrelled shotgun is the equivalent of a blunderbuss, maybe not. But as I've earlier posted (see archives, heading of Miller v. US], the Miller opinion was drafted in haste, based on only the government's brief (which wasn't terribly good, either), and written by a Justice whose distinction was not his intellect but the fact that he was widely reputed the most obnoxious man in Washington -- then as now, quite a distinction.]
Permalink · US v. Miller · Comments (1)
Mich. a full auto state
From Eric Larson, on subguns.com:
"Michigan Attorney General Cox issued Opinion No. 7183, dated December 27, 2005, which supercedes former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly's Opinion No. 5210, dated August 10, 1977.
Boiled down, it means that Michigan residents are legally entitled to lawfully possess NFA firearms and devices, as long as they are legally registered with ATF and ATF approves the transfer application (i.e., that the Michigan resident has no convictions that would prohibit possessing a firearm, and gets his/her paperwork signed by a CLEO or done through a corporation). Anybody who wants it should be able to obtain a copy of the foregoing Opinion by contacting the Michigan Attorney General's office.
Opinion No. 7183 clarifies that an approved application to transfer an NFA firearm or device meets the requirement under Michigan law as a "license" required to lawfully possess a machine gun. If you get the Opinion, and read it, it will answer all of your legal questions. I understand some folks are in the process of sending the Opinion to ATF to get it implemented in the National Firearms Act Branch so applications by Michigan residents will be approved. This covers all NFA firearms and devices, in addition to those classified as curios or relics."
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (1)
Citizens apprehend bank robber
In Lexington, KY, police responded to a bank robbery to find that two citizens were holding the robber at gunpoint.
An "oops" moment. I googled the arrestee's name, "Daniel L. Stines," and came up with this. If that's him, and it's the same name and town but can't be sure, he's gonna have to resign as master of Masonic Lodge 930....
{Update: yep, I meant "oops" in terms of -- if you're a young crackhead, having citizens grab you for bank robbery and hold you for the cops is an occupational hazard. It's quite another thing when you're 60 yrs old and something of a pillar of the local community....]
Continue reading "Citizens apprehend bank robber"
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
ABC 20/20 on guns
I was tipped off, too late, that the latest issue of ABC's 20/20's "Myths, Lies, and Straight Talk" had an astonishing segment on gun control. Here's the online summary:
"MYTH # 5 — Guns Are Always Bad for Us
America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.
But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.
The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.
A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.
It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them, it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.
But many people, including Rev. Al Sharpton, are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.
But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws; and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime."
I may just start watching.... the other segments on this iconclastic broadcast included giving the rebuttal to claims that we have less free time, that Republicans actually do shrink the size of government, that overpopulation is a problem, that DDT and other chemicals are bad, and that we are nuking our forests.
And to think this is Peter Jenning's old network...
UPDATE: see more in extended posting below....