« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
March 2006
Never...
Never bring a bat to a gunfight.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Problems for a Brady stalwart
Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who draws a 92% agreement rating from Brady Campaign and an F from NRA, has a bit of a problem. As in Capitol Hill Police seeking an arrest warrant in the wake of her assault on an officer.
[Answer to Gully's comment: national legislators are privileged against arrest, while travelling to or attending Congress, except for "treason, felony, and breach of the peace." The last exception would cover assault on an officer. Basically, they're protected against arrest for nondisruptive misdemeanors. Once read of one squeaking out of a DUI arrest on it.]
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Maryland range protection bill
The Maryland Senate has voted to expand its range protection law -- the bill now moves on to the Assembly.
At least as I read the pdf file, the statute already banned landowners from bringing a nuisance action against a range if the range was already there when the landowner acquired the land -- no "coming to the nuisance," as the common law doctrine is known. (As I recall, the usual rule was that you couldn't come to the nuisance and then sue, but there was an exception if the general nature of land use in the area had changed). The amendment makes the statutory protection apply to local governments as well. I'd assume there was some local problem with those governments, but don't know what it was.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (0)
9/11 and bureaucracy
At Reason Online, Jeff Taylor has a post on 9/11 and the FBI bureaucracy. The theme is essentially that a few agents had spotted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and others, accurately predicted what the terrorists were up to, and had their probes blocked by superiors. The problem wasn't lack of intelligence (pace the Patriot Act) but bureaucrats who had intelligence but could not shift out of their accustomed ways of seeing things.
Welcome to the bureaucracy.
Prediction: the agents who spotted the risk, and are talking truthfully about it, will find their careers ruined or at least held back, and those idiots who obstructed them will continue to rise.
DTH, former GS-14, step 5.
Brady Campaign--fall of Berlin Wall will live in infamy?
Update: Countertop links to this WashPo interview of the Bradys.
It leads off with a bit of a slip. At least, I think it was a bit of a slip. When asked about Reagan's legacy, the Bradys reply: "I think the coming down of the Berlin Wall will always live in infamy." (I am not kidding, that's what it says).
Some interesting quotes:
"We do not support gun bans unless a locality has voted it in themselves." (Hmm... I guess that means they don't support one city trying to ban guns in a different city. That excludes a lot).
In answer to a question about why then they supported a *Federal ban* on "assault weapons: "I was speaking of bans on all firearms."
To a question about states liberalizing CCW: "We believe that permits for carrying concealed weapons should be issued only if the local law enforcement or courts approve."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
Gunsmiths in danger
Michael Bane is reporting a major danger to gunsmiths.
Essentially -- for GCA purposes, "manufacturing" a gun means making the receiver.
But there's also an 11% excise tax on manufacturing a firearms -- payable to Pittman-Robertson funds, which are used to support wildlife management. For purposes of this statute, what is "manufacturing"? Historically, it's been viewed as more than making the receiver, something along the lines of "putting the gun together." Last year Congress exempted makers of fewer than fifty firearms a year (I'm none too comfortable with that, simply because the exemption largely covers expensive custom guns, whose buyers can better afford the tax than most of us).
ATFE, Bane reports, is now construing it as including making any substantial changes to a firearm, and is hitting up gunsmiths for changing hammers and rebarreling firearms, and demanding back taxes and penalties.
(Via Resistance is Futile.
Congress considering action on 527 groups
The House is considering restricting 527 groups' election involvement (they're named for the section of the internal revenue code that authorizes them).
These were the "we're not really election committees, just political education committees" that played a role in the last election -- Moveon, for the Demos, Swiftboaters for the GOP -- largely because the "campaign reform" statute had restricted PACs, soft money, and other modes of expression.
Nancy Pelosi says the Demos will oppose this, which is predictable, since the Demo 527s, pumped with millions by George Soros and others, outspent the GOP ones by about 2:1. While I can't rejoice in further abridgement of the First Amendment, it is a lesson for the Demos about chickens coming home to roost.
Brady Campaign
Brady Campaign is marking the 25th anniversary of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan with an announcement of their new legislative agenda. Which is their old legislative agenda. Use mayors as PR tools, make the gun issue a political consideration, enact laws restricting gun dealers, one gun a month and background checks at gun shows.
In sum: more PR and the same bills they've been unable to get enacted over the last ten years.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
He must have really POed someone....
An Ass't US Attorney Attorney fails to give the defense exculpatory material (material suggesting the defendants might be innocent, whose disclosure is required) -- that's not news. The judge reverses convictions because the AUSA failed to disclose -- OK, minor news.
But the government indicts the AUSA and another official for conspiring to conceal the evidence from the defense -- no doubt at all that IS news. Never heard of that before. It's always been -- if a person conceals evidence from the prosecution, charge them with obstruction of justice -- if someone conceals it from the defense and gets caught, oh, sorry, here's the evidence, best of luck with it. More here.
Am I too cynical when I suspect the difference might be that this particular former AUSA dared to complain abot how the Department handled the case, and then filed a whistle-blower lawsuit, following which "He said he got a call last week from his high school that his records were subpoenaed by the Justice Department, as were his college transcripts. "My phone records, my computer, my e-mail, my files in my office. My secretary has been subpoenaed..."
As an old bureaucrat, I know that in the bureaucracy the one unforgivable sin is to embarass your own agency. (You can embarass other agencies at will, but not your own). That was illustrated when Waco revived in 1999. The independent counsel (whose staff was mostly Justice lawyers on detail, so much for independence) found lots of coverups, and wrote them off as mistakes, misjudgments, etc. The one person he prosecuted was the AUSA, Johnson, who had let Mike McNulty see the evidence and thus expose the matter. The others walked, but Johnson had to take a dive on a felony for failing to hand over a few pages of notes to a grand jury.
Strange shooting range bill in AZ
AZ state rep Pamela Gorman has introduced a "strike everything" amendment to an unrelated bill (a strike everything strikes out all content of the bill and substitutes something else). The amendment would prohibit any subdivision of the state (i.e. counties, maybe cities) from operating a shooting range "under the jurisdiction" of state game and fish. It's also retroactive to Dec. 31 of last year.
Apart from the question of "why?" it's an illustration of why those who like laws or sausage should never watch either being made. What's a range "under the jurisdiction of" game and fish? Is it any range (since they can enforce game and fish laws on the land). Is it any range over which they have some special control? Any range for which they've disbursed a grant? And how and why do you make it retroactive -- how do you stop someone from managing what they've already managed?
ATFE abuse hearings
CNN news has the story.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
Selective application of judicial temperment
Justice Scalia is taking criticism for, inter alia, saying that if a person is captured on a battlefield he deserves to be in a POW camp such as Gitmo, when Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, challenging the Gitmo detentions, is before the Court.
My friend Bob Dowlut points out an interesting event In the Qulici v. Morton Grove case, decided by the 7th Circuit.
Judge Bauer, who wrote the opinion, went on Miller's Court [a tv program] before the case was argued and decided. Bauer said on the tv program he would uphold the handgun ban. He was asked by motion to recuse himself -- he'd not only commented on the merits, but announced his vote, prior to argument. There was no recusal. Bob noted this in his subsequent law review article, Federal and State Guarantees of the Right to Arms, 15 Univ. of Dayton Law Review 59 (1989), at page 70 footnote 77. Here's a link, altho the footnote formatting is imperfect.
As he points out, the media made no note of it. The case was just about gun owners, not about terrorists or other favored classes.
Media bias and the rave shooting
Alphecca has an excellent roundup on the subject.
Ruling allowing discovery in challenge to FFL revocation
From John Harris of Nashville, attorney for FFL Top Brass Sports, comes this ruling (small pdf) allowing the dealer to take discovery in a District Court challenge to revocation of its FFL.
Normally, discovery is nonexistant in a challenge to a regulatory adjudication, since the only question is whether the agency ruling is supported by the evidence given in the regulatory proceeding. But in an appeal from an FFL revocation, the court can consider evidence outside the record, and thus the court reasons that discovery (depositions, written questions, requests for production of documents) should be allowed, too.
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (0)
NY City Gun permits and the wealthy
The New York Post has an article on who's got NYC gun carrying permits. Needless to say, wealth and power help. On the list are billionaires Donald Trump and Ronald Lauder, plus several multimillionaires, actors Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel, shock jocks Howard Stern and Don Imus. Anti-gun activist Fernando Mateo has a permit to keep a handgun at home or in his business, as are judges, prosecutors, and high-profile attorneys.
All of whom undoubtedly are more vulnerable, less protected, and more at danger than some average citizen in a high-crime area... (Hat tip to Bruce Stern).
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Rave shooting and "American Shooters & Hunters Assn"
In the wake of the Washington "Rave" shootings, the local media has (rather slowly, compared to past years) gone into customary mode. They are somewhat inconvenienced by the fact that the killer used a shotgun (but can at least take comfort in the fact that it had a pistol grip type stock), is not reported to have bought it at a gun show, had owned it for years, it wasn't an assault rifle nor a handgun, etc.
Still, the Seattle Post article above makes a game try, arguing that the killer *owned* other guns.
It also plugs the American Hunters and Shooters Ass'n, telling us that it's composed of shooters who want "commonsense" gun laws.
In fact, it was founded by John Rosenthal, who was on the Brady Center's board of directors. (He claims he left it in 2004 because he was frustrated by its support for the DC handgun ban. If so, he must have a high tolerance for frustration, since he was on the board for six years. A more likely explanation is that he was designated to found the new group, in an effort to split the shooting community). And it's run by a Demo consulting from, the DCS Group. Here's more from Countertop and from The Bitch Girls.
Its agenda is the same as Brady's. Looks like a proposal to extent Massachusetts' laws nationwide.
Here's Gunlawnews' great investigation of the group. The url was initially registered by DCS, which represents John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, etc. The president of AHSA is a donor to Bill Clinton, the Brady Campaign, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, etc.
But according to the Seattle newspaper, it's a bunch of shooters and hunters. Who says you can't trust the mainstream media?
.50 caliber raffle
A group of conservative Illinois student groups are raffling off a .50 cal.
DC official stands up for gun ownership
DC Taxicab Commissioner Sandra Seegars is standing up for gun ownership. It goes without saying that DC has decided not to renew her term.
Just verified -- she is the Seegars of the DC lawsuit!
Permalink · contemporary issues
civil rights, arms, and military training
The other day I posted regarding the Lumbee indian tribe and its breaking up of a Klan rally. The Lumbee raid was organized by its VFW chairman. Somewhere back I'd posted on Robert William's book about how he organized his NAACP chapter out of WWII and Korean vets, and shot up a Klan motorcade coming to attack his vice president's house. In the book he talks about how they dug foxholes in the law, set up around the clock defensive stations, and set up a manner of phone tree so that if any one member was attacked, he could make one call, and rally all the others to his house. Then there was that incident (I forget the details) where veterans organized to overthrown a corrupt town or county government.
Possible theme for a thesis, or popular article: the effect of WWII vets on the civil rights struggle. You have a situation where large numbers of people, including minorities, are suddenly given training in arms, exposure to organization, chain of command, and communications. They return to a civilian world in which (thanks to WWII captures and most nations changing over to semiauto military arms), bolt action rifles and military handguns are a dime a dozen. [You youngsters won't remember, but I remember seeing full page ads in gun magazines for surplus arms ... Mauser 98s for $20, Springfield 03s for $30-40, Lugers and P-38s for $20 or so).
Carnival of Cordite
The First Anniversary issue of Carnival of Cordite is up...
Part One reviews its issues over the last year, and
Part Two reviews postings over the last two weeks.
ATFE hearing tommorrow
House Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security, has announced a hearing tommorrow regarding ATFE. The hearing is set for 2 PM on March 28. No witness list on the webpage, and the subject is "Oversight Hearing on The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE): Reforming Licensing and Enforcement Authorities".
Sounds like it'll be a short one, because at 3 PM they start hearings on the H.R. 5005, the "Firearms Correction and Improvement Act".
Here's the text of HR 5005. It's pretty pro-gun.
Suicidal camels as weapon
Some recently-translated Iraqi documents suggest Sadaam was considering use of explosive-laden camels in suicide attacks.
Puts me in mind of a couple of proposals to use critters as weapons. In the 19th century, the army experimented with a mule-mounted cannon. Use the mule as a tripod (quadripod?), turn the gun sideways, and fire. Problem was the recoil knocked the mule down, and then it refused to get up unless that strange thing was taken off its back.
In WWII on the eastern front one side, I believe the Soviets, trained dogs to run under tanks, by putting their food there. Then an explosive charge was mounted on the dog's back, with a rod extending upward linked to the fuse. Dog runs under tank, rod initiates detonation. Problem developed that the dogs were smarter than they'd expected. They could tell the difference between friendly tanks and enemy ones, and had been trained that food was to be found under the *friendly* tanks, so they went for them.
{update: thanks to reader Bill Bailey, here's a webpage on use of animals in war. I've heard of the proposals for pigeon-aimed smart bombs, and I believe the British explored a cat-aimed one (drop it on a ship, cat sees ship, cat sees water, cat hates water and aims for ship. Didn't work, of course).
We need to regulate cars as tightly as we regulate guns
The Charlotte Observer has a story regarding Mohammed Taheri-Aza, the guy who drove a car into the crowd of students in order to protest beliefs that Moslems are violent. (Yeah, he sure did a job of proving his point....)
He left a note: "I would instead use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at present, most likely due to my foreign nationality,"
(Hat tip to Dan Gifford).
Continue reading "We need to regulate cars as tightly as we regulate guns"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (6)
Lumbee Indians vs KKK
In research for a documentary film I'm slaving away on, I've come across a very interesting 1958 incident. Back then, Robeson County, NC, had 3-way segregation: black, white, and Indian (mostly the Lumbee tribe). The Klan burned a cross on the lawns of two Lumbees, and then held a nighttime rally.
The sheriff warned the Klan that they were putting their lives in danger, but their leader did not listen. The rally was lit by a generator running a single light, and it did not give off enough illumination to reveal that the rally was being surrounded by the Lumbee -- a force variously estimated at 100, 500, or a thousand of them, many armed.
Then a shot blew the lightbulb away, and the Lumbee descended on the Klansmen, shouting and firing into the air. The Klan ran, many discarding their sheets. The Lumbee donned the sheets, cavorted around, and hung an effigee of the Klan leader.
It was the last Klan rally in the area.
Here's a link. Here's another.
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (0)
DC police Dep't
Don Kates forwards this link to a story ("A list that makes it more difficult to put criminals away") noting that DC prosecutors have a list of officers under investigation, somewhere over a hundred at any one time, and plan their cases around it (make sure a confession is witnessed by someone not on the list, etc). From the story, "under investigation" isn't just "someone complained he was impolite or used too much force," but more like "he's implicated in a robbery." That'd make sense, since you probably wouldn't waste time planning a case around the fact that an officer was accused of being rude, nor of using force (unless the case was, say, assault on an officer).
In forwarding it, Don states that during a time in the 1990s, the DC PD suspended background checks on applicants, and a number of felons became officers. And that it's not the list that makes it hard to put criminals away, it's the conduct that got an officer on the list.
The DC PD has 3600 sworn officers, so 100+ is a bit under 3% of the force.
BBC on overuse of SWAT
The BBC has an article on use, and possible overuse, of SWAT-type units.
ATFE case in Eastern Tennessee
Says Uncle has a report on a developing ATFE case in Eastern TN. Not much detail yet, but it sounds as if the argument may, repeat may, be that possession of semiauto parts plus a milling machine equals possession of full auto. (Via Instapundit, which adds another link.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
Kansas overrides veto, passes liberal CCW
The third try is charmed. The Kansas legislature has three times passed "shall carry," in 1997, 2004, and this month, and seen it vetoed.
This time, tho, the legislature got the 2/3 vote and overrode the veto. The vote in both houses was securely over 2/3 (27 votes needed in Senate, and it got 30, 84 needed in the house, and it got 91).
Hat tip to reader Greg Lyons....
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Md bill -- "shall issue" for women
25 Maryland delegates have cosponsored a bill to establish shall issue for women, while retaining may issue for men.
It's an interesting approach. Generally, gender discrimination is subject (if I remember correctly) to some level of review greater than rational basis and less than strict scrutiny. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find data establishing that women are victims of violent crime more often than are men, in proportion to the population of each. (They're also less likely to be perpetrators, but that's not so relevant to the bill since the screening process is the same for both genders -- it just provides that men must prove a need for self defense, whereas women need only show they want it for self defense).
(Hat tip to reader Adrian, who spotted the bill)
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (5)
Code of the Duel
I suppose it's the ultimate arms law -- here is a Code Duello drawn up by a convention of gentlemen in Ireland in 1777, and subsequently accepted by custom throughout Great Britain.
It actually has few regulations regarding the duel itself, and much more on what manner of apology must be given in order to avoid it. The first to insult must be the first to apologize, even if the response was more insulting. Actually slapping the other person is so severe an offense that an apology cannot be made save by handing the other person a cane and invited them to cane you (or you must fire three shots, and then you can apologize without offering the cane). For some offenses, honor is restored by two shots without a hit, others require three. If the challenge is made without specifying grounds, one shot suffices, and the most trifling of flesh wounds counts as a hit and ends the duel.
An insult to a lady under a gentleman's care is automatically one higher level than it would be if offered to the gentleman himself. An insult to a fellow in the course of defending a lady's reputation is such that only a slight apology is needed.
The seconds must be equal in social stature to their principals, since if they have a falling out, they will fight each other. A challenge may not be given at night (the assumption seems to be that at night a person may be inebriated and hotheaded).
Continue reading "Code of the Duel"
Judges and arms
Alan Corwin forwards to me a discussion between him and another relating to the arming of judges. (To be more precise, proposals to exempt judges from various firearms regulations, in the same way that LEOs are generally exempt. There is an attorney general's opinion in AZ, where a JP asked if he was a "peace officer" and thus able to carry concealed (back before there were permits for it). The AG ruled that a JP is only a peace officer when he is responding to a riot (one of their duties under law). Anyway--
blondrukuz writes:
>i am doing a paper on if judges should be allowed to carry guns. i
>was wondering if u had any info on possible specifics when it comes
>to judges. i know law enforcement has seperate policies regarding
>guns versus the public. are the judges treated as pubic persons? can
>they carry firearms? in all states? i am from california. thank you
>for any information u may have.
Alan replies:
As a matter of principle I would generally be against giving any
group special privileges that the American public at large does not
enjoy. The idea that a judge needs personal protection more than you
or I, or has a right to keep and bear arms that you or I do not have,
or has more justification for self defense than other people do, is
blatantly elitist and simply unacceptable as a standard for the
American way. This would apply to many other groups that also seek to
exempt themselves from laws that constrain the rest of us.
That said, it's obvious that many groups, especially government
employees like judges, prosecutors, officials of many descriptions
and more are seeking to lift themselves above the rest of us, with
privileges and 'rights' we don't have and cannot get. This helps
destroy the American Dream, and is increasingly popular. California,
where you are from, leads the way nationally down roads such as this.
It's a shame, and an affront to everything that has made America great.
Should judges be allowed to exercise an uninfringeable right under
the Constitution to keep and bear arms? Of course, just like the rest
of us. If judges are somehow granted this privilege, and you and I
are not, tyranny has increased.
The modern Hollywood "blacklist"
This from Dan Gifford:
We are accustomed to hearing about the 1950s official Hollywood blackballing of writers and others with suspected communist or even leftist leanings by "conservative" studio heads. But did an unofficial liberal Hollywood political blacklist replace it? Yes, it did. And award winning science fiction writer Neil Schulman
That contradicted the liberal politics of Law's writers. They dropped him and, according to what I heard, put his name on the whisper blackball grapevine. I first heard about the incident from a fellow ACLU board member who was an "LA Law" writer at the time. Neil wrote one of the more poignant "Twilight Zone" episodes and he is an example of the very liberal McCarthyesque bias that we are so accustomed to hearing does not exist.
Permalink · media · Comments (2)
Another "This is pitiful moment"
"Anti-Gun Activist Arrested On Gun Charge". More here.
Sniper on the loose
Sniper on the loose in Pittsburg. Except that it turns out he was on a rooftop shooting pigeons with a BB gun.
Squabbles over originalism
The Supreme Court just ruled in Georgia v. Randolph that, where a search is purely after evidence, it cannot be based on consent if both owners/tenants are present, one gives consent and the other refuses it.
What's interesting is that Justice Stevens (the most liberal member) concurs, with an opinion that implicitly takes a swipe at originalism. " In the 18th century, when the Fourth Amendment was adopted, the advice would have been quite different from what is appropriate today. Given the then-prevailing dramatic differences between the property rights of the husband and the far lesser rights of the wife, only the consent of the husband would matter. Whether “the master of the house” consented or objected, his decision would control. Thus if “original understanding” were to govern the outcome of this case, the search was clearly invalid because the husband did not consent." He goes on, of course, to note that things are different today. "In today’s world the only advice that an officer could properly give should make it clear that each of the partners has a constitutional right that he or she may independently assert or waive."
Justice Scalia files a dissent in response: "It is not as clear to me as it is to Justice Stevens that, at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted, a police officer could enter a married woman’s home over her objection, and could not enter with only her consent. Nor is it clear to me that the answers to these questions depended solely on who owned the house. It is entirely clear, however, that if the matter did depend solely on property rights, a latter-day alteration of property rights would also produce a latter-day alteration of the Fourth Amendment outcome—without altering the Fourth Amendment itself.
Justice Stevens’ attempted critique of originalism confuses the original import of the Fourth Amendment with the background sources of law to which the Amendment, on its original meaning, referred. From the date of its ratification until well into the 20th century, violation of the Amendment was tied to common-law trespass.... The issue of who could give such consent generally depended, in turn, on “historical and legal refinements” of property law. United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , n. 7 (1974). As property law developed, individuals who previously could not authorize a search might become able to do so, and those who once could grant such consent might no longer have that power. But changes in the law of property to which the Fourth Amendment referred would not alter the Amendment’s meaning: that anyone capable of authorizing a search by a private party could consent to a warrantless search by the police."
He adds "Finally, I must express grave doubt that today’s decision deserves Justice Stevens’ celebration as part of the forward march of women’s equality. Given the usual patterns of domestic violence, how often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands that they stay out? The most common practical effect of today’s decision, insofar as the contest between the sexes is concerned, is to give men the power to stop women from allowing police into their homes—which is, curiously enough, precisely the power that Justice Stevens disapprovingly presumes men had in 1791."
A few days ago, the Court (per Justice Scalia) handed US v. Grubbs, in which Justice Souter's concurrence (joined by Stevens) noted, with regard to anticipatory warrants and Scalia's reference to the 4th amendment's text, " The notation of a starting date was an established feature even of the objectionable 18th-century writs of assistance, see, e.g., Massachusetts Writs of Assistance Bill, 1762, reprinted in M. Smith, The Writs of Assistance Case 567–568 (1978); Writ of Assistance (English) of George III, 1761, reprinted in id., at 524–527. And it is fair to say that the very word “warrant” in the Fourth Amendment means a statement of authority that sets out the time at which (or, in the case of anticipatory warrants, the condition on which) the authorization begins."
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Volokh on international law and rights
Gene Volokh has an interesting post on the dangers of regarding international and foreign law (or custom) as protecting freedom. He cites to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, while acknowledging a right to practice of religion, states it may be restricted as "necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Also, it may be restricted as necessary "For respect of the rights or reputations of others" It then goes on to mandate -- not allow, but mandate -- "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." Pursuant to those provisions, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights has ordered an investigation of Denmark's position that publishing the cartoons of Mohammed is protected by freedom of speech.
Egad. Those who place such weight on international matters should accept that it's quite the other way around. The international community should be looking to the US since (1) we do a much better job of protecting rights and (2) it's been working for two hundred years.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
Indiana "no retreat" law
Indiana's governor just signed a no retreat bill into law.
From the report, Indiana didn't have a retreat requirement to begin with. This does not stop the Brady Campaign spokesman from describing the bill as "horrible" and "a big mistake."
He goes on, "We shouldn't be encouraging people to use deadly force in public. That's why we have trained police officers."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
UCLA study of media bias
Three UCLA economists have produced what appears to be an unbiased study of media bias.
(Hat tip to Bill Bailey)
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
More on Cory Maye case
The Agitator has details of an on-scene investigation. (via Instapundit). Maye is the fellow convicted of murder after police broke into the wrong apartment and he fired at them. This isn't the usual blogging -- he actually tracked down a juror, and another person who was on the receiving end of a flawed search. And found that the public defender was fired, apparently for having defended Maye better than the powers that be desired.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Anticipatory search warrants--and a bit of a dig at Justice Scalia?
The Supreme Court just upheld anticipatory search warrants 9-0, further holding that the warrant itself need not contain the contingency (here, that a package of child porn mailed to the defendant by a government sting operation be delivered to his house).
The opinion is by Scalia, and the concurrence by Souter, joined by Ginsburg and Stevens, notes that if a future Court should hold that presenting the warrant to the person being searched is constitutionally required (as it is not now), then an anticipatory warrant that did not contain the condition would presumably be invalid.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
ABC on women and guns
An ABC affiliate has run a short story on women and guns. The script mis-spells Sandy Froman's name at one place, but it's interesting to note the spin. It's slanted somewhat, as you'd expect (quotes Sandy on sporting use of guns by women, then quotes Brady Campaign on gun dangers without giving any other side. Still, it's quite an improvement over media treatment of ten years ago, when they either would have cited Brady alone, or at best have tried to depict the NRA side as the babblings of neanderthals.
Continue reading "ABC on women and guns"
Permalink · media · Comments (0)
Don Kates' essay
I've attached, in the extended remarks, an essay by Don Kates on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Here are my comments on it:
I don't think it completely accurate to say there was no intent to modify the original constitution. Modification is what amendments are all about.
I think the purpose can be more exactly stated as an intent to avoid modifying the federal government as the federalists thought it should be. They wanted to set up a functional, fair system, and the antifederalists claimed they wanted to set up an all-powerful and oppressive one. So--resolve the fears with amendments that did not restrict the system you want, but would restrict what you have no intention of doing anyway. OK, we bind ourselves not to create a national church, forbid freedom of speech, or disarm the populace. We never meant to do any of that -- and it would be political and perhaps physical suicide to try -- so why not forbid it? On the other hand, keep what is seen as important -- the power to raise armies and specify organization of the militia, to tax and spend, etc. -- free of new restrictions. Thus the "throwing a tub to the whale" (18th century lingo for "launch a decoy") remark.
With regard Prof. Volokh's point, I would amplify a bit. Yes, use of prefatory or hortatory clauses was common in constitutional drafting of the time. The enforcement of a bill of rights was still unclear, judicial review and all that, and in any event legal remedies don't work well against a real dictator. As Jefferson wrote to Madison, a bill of rights at least lets the people be certain of what their rights are and of when they have been infringed (with the implication they can then vote the scoundrels out of office or, if that fails, take up arms). For that purpose, you might as well explain why they have a right. You can see this all in the letters between Madison and Jefferson leading up to the bill of rights. Madison argues that a bill of rights is a mere parchment barrier that any real tyranny would disregard at will, and Jefferson is arguing that at least it will let the people know, indisputably, when the government starts to go that way. (Note that both seem to think that what is guaranteed in a bill of rights is clear from its face.... no room for balancing tests, strict vs. lesser scrutiny, etc. The average person should be able to judge from reading the words whether a governmental action is illegal or not).
Madison's draft had several such explanatory clauses, and the first congress chopped them all out when they radically shortened his work. All, except for the one in the second amendment. I suspect it stayed in for a simple reason. Unlike the other explanatory clauses, it had a separate thrust. A statement of an individual right to arms would satisfy, oh, Jefferson, Sam Adams, the PA minority and the NH convention delegates, but would not have sufficed to satisfy antifederalists such as George Mason and Pat Henry, who really were hot on the militia system. So why not spend nine words to make them happy and/or undermine their criticism?
Continue reading "Don Kates' essay"
Permalink · Second Amendment wording · Comments (2)
Reynolds on arms and genocide
At the Guardian Online, Glenn Reynolds has an article on arms and genocide. It's inspired a bit of a debate at the Volokh Conspiracy, although I don't think it a particularly deep one.
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (0)
Now, this is SERIOUS spin!
A survey by two political scientists finds that (1) more college students identify as liberals than as conservative, but (2) they feel 77% of the college faculty is left of center, only 16% around center, and only 7% to the right of center.
So the Journal of Higher Education, under the headline "The Real Bias in the Classroom," argues that the "real" classroom bias is that students are to the right of the professors!
Brady Campaign tactics
From the Wellstone Institute comes an interesting article on Brady's tactics. An interesting one is to call members, pep them up, then patch them thru to a legislator.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Anniversary
March 20. Twenty one years ago I lost Bill Avery, my father in law and best friend. Yup, the two aren't ordinarily synonymous. My then-wife, Frances, was pregnant with his grandson.
In May, 1985 Mark was born at Fairfax Hospital. Eighteen years and a couple of days later, Frances died in Fairfax Hospital, and I buried her next to Bill. Here's a website memorial to them.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (2)
Talk about a scam...
Off topic, but ... I just got a mailing from Directory Billing LLC, out of Florida, promoting some manner of yellow page ad. Enclosed is a check fof $3.25, and a flier promoting their services (without a mention of price or a form to send back).
I had no intention of wasting money on this sort of thing, but figured to seek out the trap. Yup, it's there. Above the area for endorsement on the back of the check is a fine-print contract that (1) says that you want to sign up and pay $49.95 per month and (2) authorize them to directly remove it from the bank account into which this check is deposited. Oh, and it refers to your accepting the terms of offer. Those are in fine print on the back of the flier, and say that they can also bill you on your local telephone company bill.
FLA bill on firearms in cars
The Brady Campaign is celebrating the tabling of a Florida bill that would allow firearms in locked cars on private property, but United Sportsmen of Florida is renewing its push (see extended remarks).
Continue reading "FLA bill on firearms in cars"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Winchester USA closing -- complications
According to Newday, the Winchester plan closure in Connecticut is growing more complex. The factory is owned by Herstal Group, a Belgian firm, which is said to plan to discontinue the "traditional" rifle but continue "specialty" ones (whatever those terms mean -- does traditional mean the Model 94, or include the Model 70?) made overseas. But the right to use the Winchest name is owned by the Olin Corp.
City and union leaders have offered to buy the plant for a nominal sum and forget about back taxes and contract penalties, which they say total $17 million (a figure Herstal disputes). And Olin says that closing the US factory would violate its contract allowing Herstal to use the Winchester name (a contract that expires next year anyway).
Court's use of foreign law
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren has a post regarding Justice Ginsburg's references to foreign law, linking to an interesting study on use of foreign law by the Supremes. The gist of the study is that:
1. References to foreign law by the Court go far back into the early republic;
2. The references in constitutional cases have, however, recently escalated.
3. The practice may be justifiable when a constitutional provision refers to reasonableness or its like (cruel and unusual punishment springs to mind) but is hard to justify when construing an express American right or power that lacks such wording. That is, in the great majority of constitutional law cases.
4. In those cases, reference to international standards is suggestive that members of the Court are reaching out to justify illegitimate policy-making, making law and policy rather than construing it.
[Update: Haven't had time to read the study, so I don't know if it counts British common law decisions. The summary refers to an 1820 decision on the definition of piracy. I can readily see use of foreign law in that context, since piracy is an international crime defined largely by international tradition -- that is, a sort of international common law.]
Permalink · General con law · Comments (2)
Article on KY, IN "Castle doctrine" bills
The Louisville Courier-Journal has an article on progress of self-defense legislation. Its impartiality is apparent from the first sentence, which tells us that bills expand "people's right to shoot anyone they believe is threatening them."
A few quotes the article uses: "I think there was some concern that this was just going to give people an opportunity to shoot somebody and not be held responsible," "This is not about self-defense."
It tells us that even gun owners disagree about the bills -- and cites someone saying that he wouldn't shoot to prevent auto theft (which the legislation doesn't allow, unless you're in the vehicle and a carjacker puts you in reasonable fear of deadly harm).
And the standard reference to "NRA clout," followed by a statement that "a lot of positions they take are mindless."
Permalink · media · Comments (0)
New Orleans--latest twist
NRA reports that the mayor and city government have caved, and after denying that it seized any guns, the city admits that it did, and arrangements are being made for their return. Details on how to file a claim are in extended remarks.
Continue reading "New Orleans--latest twist"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
Justice Ginsburg's use of foreign law and more
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein has a post noting where Justice Ginsburg refers to citing, not only foreign law, but treaties which the US had declined to ratify, to show how the Michigan affirmative action policy at issue "accords with the international understanding of the [purpose and propriety] of affirmative action.."
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
New Orleans gun seizures -- where some guns may have gone
A Grant Parish deputy has been charged with selling a seized firearm (albeit not one seized during Katrina).
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
NRA Foundation
Charity Navigator gives the NRA Foundation four stars. Among other things, the amount of their income devoted to fundraising is 5% and to administration 5%, with the result that nearly 90% is disbursed to programs.
By way of comparison, the NAACP legal fund gets one star -- fundraising and admin. costs are 16% and 7%. Brady Center (their legal arm) gets one star--fundraising and admin. are 15% and 6%.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (0)
Delaware CCW reform
CCW reform is heating up in Delaware. Not surprising, since both Sarah Brady and NRA 1st VP John Sigler live there.
(I find the former rather curious. NRA VP is an unpaid and quite parttime job -- so is NRA President. But Brady is supposed to be running their shop, and I assume getting paid for it. Dewey Beach, Del. looks to be about 120 miles by road from DC, making it a long commute at rush hour!
Ah--found their IRS form 990 for 2004. It lists Brady as chairman, averaging 40 hours per week and drawing $146,000 in pay and $5K in benefits (p. 12).
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)
Off topic, but
The US unemployment rate is 4.75%, which means nearly full employment (about 4% is inevitable due to people changing jobs, etc).
That of France is 11.2%, and twice that among workers under 25.
German's rate is over 12%.
(1) When are those guys going to figure out that the American system -- works? (2) Funny how you haven't heard about this in the MSM very much.
British killer wanted to emulate Columbine massacre
Reuters is reporting a British killer decided to emulate the Columbine massacre, using knives, and managed to kill four.
Continue reading "British killer wanted to emulate Columbine massacre"
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (0)
Gun Owners of South Africa
The ever-busy Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, has been in South Africa aiding Gun Owners of South Africa.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
And while we're on foreign law...
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel notes that Ireland has just repealed an an 1181 statute forbidding jews to own armor. (I suppose that renders moot the question of whether the statute, which refers to chain mail and hauberks, applied to plate armor or the modern kevlar).
Justice Ginsburg on use of foreign law
Here's a speech she gave in South Africa. Beginning is ... a bunch of framing era references to the fact that when construing international law, courts make reference to ... international law. Followed by a note that on an internet chat room somewhere, someone said that she ought to be offed for having used foreign decisions (heck, I've had the same said about me, for having attacked Mike Moore). And a reference to Dred Scott, which declined to consider foreign law (interesting, but the point being ...? That if you don't refer to foreign law, you're liable to issue racist rulings?)
Personally ... if a Justice wants to stake out a broad understanding of rights and liberties, they shouldn't be reading foreign caselaw. They ought to read the legislative history of our own 14th Amendment.
UPDATE: On the 14th Amendment, I agree that the leg. history shows VERY clearly that the purpose was to incorporate the bill of rights against the states, via the privileges and immunities clause (as opposed to the due process clause, the basis of modern "selective incorporation"). Prof. Michael Kent Curtis' book on the amendment (title slips my memory just now) is a solid demonstration of that. Prof. Amar makes a case for something less than 100% incorporation under this theory--a few bill of rights liberties may have been meant not so much as proclamations of liberty as of restrictions unique to the new government (i.e., civil jury trial for cases over $20 -- hard to see why a right would only begin at $20). The Supreme Court's rejection of P&I incorporation, beginning in the Slaughterhouse Cases, was intellectually dishonest, a word game played without any reference to the leg. history.
What particularly frosts me about that is that the 14th Amendment was meant to annihilate Dred Scott. The first section says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens thereof and of their State. That wipes out Dred Scott's holding that free blacks could never be citizens of a State, and thereby of the U.S. So where did the framers of the 14th get the idea of "privileges and immunities" of a citizen of the US? That exact phrase is used in Dred Scott to describe bill of rights liberties -- to meet on political topics, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. For the Supreme Court to play a word game and claim that privileges and immunities of US citizens meant something very narrow, and excluding the bill of rights, was the height of judicial dishonesty.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms
Major General Charles H. Jacoby Jr., the Commanding General of US Army Alaska, has forbidden troops under his command to carry concealed, even off duty and off base, in addition to otherwise restricting their right to arms. More details in extended entry below.
[Hat tip to Budd Schroeder and the Firearms Coalition.
Continue reading "Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms"
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (14)
Pro-gun bills in PA
Pro-gun legislators in PA have introduced two interesting bills.
One, by Rep. Metcalfe and Pippy, would require destruction of the state background checks after they are passed -- as it is, police are apparently keeping the records. The other, by Rep. Cappelli, would adopt the "castle doctrine," removing the retreat requirement before self-defense (it's hard to tell from the article just how this modifies current PA law -- article refers to protecting homeowners, but at common law the retreat requirement didn't apply in one's own home, as I recall).
Here's another report, referring to Rep. Cappelli and two other unnamed lawmakers.
[Hat tip to Kathy Habel]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)
British police blogs
There are several interesting anonymous British police blogs -- The Bow Street Runner, The Policeman's Blog, The Thin Blue Line, and Another Secret Policeman. The powers that be are, of course, trying to shut them down. They give an interesting view of life on the other side of the pond. Sounds pretty bureaucratic....
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Kansas to pass liberalized CCW
The Kansas legislature appears almost certain to pass a liberalized concealed carry permit bill, but the governor has pledged to veto it. Sponsors think they have enough votes for an override, but that it'll be close.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (0)
Christian Science Monitor writes story around VPC press release
Below, I noted a press release by the antigun Violence Policy Center rejoicing in the decline of licensed firearms dealers (mostly reflecting the loss of small licensees who bought for themselves or a few friends).
The Christian Science Monitor has written a story around the press release. I must say the slant is low enough to where it falls within the "slant produced by a writer given a press release and a few hours to create a story around it" rather than the "slant produced by a writer who is out to bend things to specification."
Another VPC quote of the "we can make up anything and you'll print it" variety ""What we really don't want to see is a return to the early '90s, when there was just horror story after horror story of people who were using their license to buy huge numbers of guns and then traffic them illegally into urban areas with strict gun-control laws."
Uh ... name one?
A modest proposal for dealer inspections: right now, ATF encourages every police agency to trace every gun they encounter (including lost guns, stolen guns, whatever) because that way ATF can testify in appropriations hearings that they traced a zillion guns last year.
Split the traces -- record whether they were for a gun actually used in crime, or not. Take the traces for guns really used in crimes. Plot them against dealers. Now, some dealers will stand out for entirely innocent reasons (they're the biggest dealer in the county, and a certain proportion of any dealer's guns will be later stolen and used in crime). But at the least, you can probably screen out the great bulk of dealers and worry about inspecting the handful that remain. If a dealer has had zero real crime traces last year, you can skip inspecting him, and if only a few, probably ditto. Who cares whether he is 100% on his paperwork?
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
Genocide in Darfur
Nat Hentoff has an excellent article on the genocide in Darfur, the UN's inaction, and the MSM's ignoring the issue.
[thanks to Don Kates for the tip]
Florida bill
Unified Sportsmen of Florida has issued a legislative alert regarding HB-129, on carrying of firearms in vehicles on private land. If you're from FLA, the extended entry here has full info and email addresses.
Continue reading "Florida bill"
Self-protection in Iraq
Iraqi civilians are -- hardly surprisingly -- stocking up on every gun they can get. This despite the fact that a pistol can cost several months' pay. [via Dave Kopel's newsletter.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Letter to the editor
The Fredericksburg (VA) Lance-Star has an Op-Ed by Dennis Hannick responding to an earlier collective-rights piece. They have an amusing layout of it -- here's the image.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)
"The governments are afraid to trust the people with arms"
So said James Madison in Federalist 46 -- notwithstanding their standing armies, European monarchs are afraid to trust their people with arms.
A more recent demonstration of this comes from a Pentagon assessment of Sadaam Hussein's strategy, such as it was. His military leaders proposed a withdrawal, and letting local Iraqis fight a guerrilla war against American supply lines (the early WWII Soviet situation).
"Mr. Hussein rejected the recommendation. Arming local tribes was too risky for a government that lived in fear of a popular uprising."
He figured that Americans would not commit land forces, because they were fearful of taking casualties. "Mr. Hussein's main concern about a possible American military strike was that it might prompt the Shiites to take up arms against the government. "Saddam was concerned about internal unrest amongst the tribes before, during or after an attack by the U.S. on Baghdad," Mr. Aziz told his interrogators."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
International law and genocide: the practical remedy
In a stunning proof of the effectiveness of international legal remedies for genocide, Slobodan Milosevic has died of old age five years into his prosecution at the Hague. He managed to hold out long enough for the prosecution to rest and his defense to begin, but the old ticker wasn't good enough to let him survive through the defense case.
Lesson for the future: if international authorities want to prosecute someone for genocide, they'll have to make sure he's under 50, not overweight, and a nonsmoker. Give him a complete medical workup before bringing charges, and you may be able to close the case before he dies on you. Oh, and see that he exercises during recesses. Sitting in a chair for 5 years listening to people can play hob with the circulatory system.
Notable quotes:
"Chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte said she regretted Milosevic's death because she believed she would have won his conviction. "
`It is a pity he didn't live to the end of the trial to get the sentence he deserved,'' Croatian President Stipe Mesic said.
Personally, I'd go for more immediate remedies for genocide: (1) announce that if it does not halt, tommorrow C-5As will cruise over the intended victims, releasing streams of parachutes. On each will be a Kalashnikov and a bunch of ammunition. (2) If you do capture the guy, forget the Hague. Try him under local law (which is what he'd have violated). Trials aren't for telling the story -- let authors do that. If Hussein were to be given a speedy and public trial in Kurdistan, we'd have a verdict by lunchtime.
UPDATE: Wait, I've got a legal solution to detaining the prisoners in Gitmo. Charge all that we want to detain indefinitely as war criminals, and ask for trial at the Hague. It'd give a legal basis for holding them until proceedings end in, say, four hundred years.
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (2)
Ninth Circuit on duties of a dealer
The 9th Cir. just ruled en banc in US v. Ogles, an appeal (pdf file)from district court here (I know both the judge and the defense atty, Richard Gardiner of Virginia).
Defendant was a California FFL who sold at an Arizona gunshow. He was charged with (1) being an FFL who improperly sold to a nonresident (note the charge was under the second of law restricting FFL transactions, not the bar on non-FFLs selling to nonresidents) and with (2) doing business without a license (on the theory that by selling away from premises and out of state he was acting outside his license). Note the inconsistency, tho. The trial court convicted him on the first but dismissed the second at the end of the government's case.
The CIrcuit upholds the conviction, and refuses to consider the gov't's appeal of the dismissal, since it was based on insufficient evidence, and a retrial would be barred by the double jeopardy clause. (Wonder why the gov't bothered appealing? Sounds like a slam-dunk to me).
It looks as if the gov't attorney managed to torque off the court rather seriously -- the majority, the concurrence, and the dissent all comment on it. It sounds as if he tried to get out of the inconsistent charges by offering to concede the second but only if the court gave him a win on the first -- and made it sound as if he was dickering with the court about how it would rule. Not a good move.
Continue reading "Ninth Circuit on duties of a dealer"
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (1)
AZ Senate passes "stand your ground" law
The AZ Senate voted unanimously to pass SB 1145. The critical language establishes "no retreat" (AZ never had a retreat requirement, but the bill may serve to keep it from being imported thru the backdoor of "there was no reasonable need for force since it was as reasonable to retreat") and establishes a presumption of lawful use of force if the other person was forcibly entering a dwelling or vehicle.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Gale Norton stepping down
Word from DC is that Interior Secretary Gale Norton is stepping down; rumors are that she may run for governor of Colorado. [UPDATE: Reuters confirms the report].
When I worked at Interior, 1982-92, Gale was for several years our Associate Solicitor (my boss's boss, in other words), and we talked quite a bit. She's thoroughly pro-gun, and tends to be a strongly libertarian conservative. I visited her in her office after she was appointed, and she remarked about guns and 9/11 that ordinarily in a crisis-type situation people would think of gun control, but 9/11 might be a turning point the other way. For years, we thought of external threats as nuclear missiles, now we think of them as terrorists. A handgun won't do a lot of good against an incoming missile, but might be handy in dealing with a terrorist.
Drop in licensed gun dealers
The antigun Violence Policy Center is rejoicing that the number of licensed firearms dealers has fallen from 245,000 to 54,000 since 1994.
In the original Gun Control Act of 1968, getting a license was made easy, for the simple reason that dealers have to record sales (and today do background checks), etc., so why not encourage licensing? A fair number of people got licenses just to buy for themselves or a few friends. Then in 1994 Congress (now figuring that TOO MANY people were complying with these standards) made it considerably more difficult -- among other things, requiring compliance with local zoning codes (which usually forbid businesses from operating in residential areas).
So just what problem does VPC have with small-time licensees? They call them "illegitimate "kitchen-table" dealers who operated out of their homes or offices," adding "an unknown percentage of which were actively involved in criminal gun trafficking." Unknown of course = none that we know of. I suspect the bottom line is -- it was a good publicity angle.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (364)
Clayton Cramer on Dunblane Massacre
Clayton has an interesting post on the Dunblane Massacre, which led to the final banning of handguns in Britain. He notes that questions are being raised with regard the files of the subsequent investigation, which were sealed for 100 years, and which some are suggesting an unsavory relationship between the killer (a serial paedophile and child pornographer) and government officials, which might explain how he managed to a get a handgun permit despite his known illegal proclivities.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Gun Mfrs protection act forces dismissal of suit
In a 58-page opinion, a California federal district court has become the first to invoke the Act in dismissing a lawsuit. NSSF press release here.
The judge had earlier dismissed the suit on other grounds, but the Ninth Circuit (Circus?) reversed him.
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (1)
Machete crime waves
Gangs are turning to machetes, and Massachuetts legislators want to ban the blades.
[Hat tip to Don Kates, who points out that what with the death toll of the Rwandan genocide, the machete may have the highest civilian death toll of any weapon]
China cites Brady Campaign
China's State Council has released a report attacking American's human rights record, and it cites the Brady Campaign.
UPDATE: the People's Daily is, surprise, carrying the story. With the note that 10% of the US population has been shot. Now, maybe my experience is unusual pacific, but 10% of the people I know have not been shot. In fact, I have some experience via studies and the criminal justice system, and 10% of the people shot at have not been shot.
As far as the homcide rate in China -- I have no idea, but any figures are purely what the government is willing to admit. Until the fall of the Soviet Union, its reported homcide rates were quite low. Today we know that most of the formerly Soviet republics in fact have rates much higher than those of the US. MUCH higher.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
Ohio legislation
The Ohio house has passed pro-gun legislation, but the governor is threatening a veto.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Brady Campaign grades the states
The Brady Campaign has issued its annual press releases announcing the grades it gives different states. So just as an experiment I checked out the States with the *lowest* homicide rates.
Maine, with the lowest rates in the country, draws a D-.
South Dakota, with the second-lowest homicide rate, draws a D.
New Hampshire, the third lowest, gets a D-
The Brady grading criteria give an interesting insight into the question "what do these folks want in the way of laws" (or perhaps more precisely, what are they willing to say they want). Included are, oh, one handgun a month, attorney general able to regulate guns, ballistic fingerprinting, parents punishable for gun access by children, cities able to sue gun mfrs, registration of all guns and permit requirements for handguns, bans on "saturday night specials," backround checks on private sales, bans on assault rifles and large magazines, waiting period for any gun sale, etc.. Oh, and no pre-emption law, so localities can impose regulations beyond this.
Even Massachusetts is regarded as imperfect: it gets an A-, getting dinged for (apparently) no rifle registration, and allowing CCW permits at police discretion.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
Right to bear arms in Maryland
Via the Bitch Girls: the Maryland legislature is debating a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to arms for self-defense and recreation. The present Maryland constitution has no right to arms provision.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (0)
New study on gun availability and homicide
Gary Kleck, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Mark Schaffer have a new study out, entitled Gun Prevalence, Homicide Rates and Causality.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
Another one bites the dust
63 year old homeowner ends a burglar's career in Florida.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Catholic Sportsmen Organization
The Catholic Sportsmen Organization is fundraising, and for a worthy purpose. They're trying to raise several thousand to buy two special bikes that are used in rehabilitation of brain-injured children, for use at a local place treating the kids. The place received a couple of manufacturer's samples, but have to return them unless they can come up with the price (I think about $3500 each). CSO has already raised $1100. Basically, the bikes let a kid who is too seriously damaged to walk move around, and get exercise and rehab in the process. Donations are tax-deductible.
CSO was founded by John Aquilino, a good friend, former NRA employee, and activist. Among its activities was a raffle of a shotgun, which stirred up controversy from church-going antigunners. A LOT of controversy. John's son (who suffered cardiac arrest at an early age, and took brain damage from it) is one of the kids receiving rehab there.
Anyone interested can make a donation to the Duckworth Bike Fund to "Catholic Sportsmen Organization" c/o 5721 39th Avenue Hyattsville MD 20781. Their Maryland Tax ID number is #31200309.
British book on Dunblane Massacre
The 1996 Dunblane Massacre -- where a shooter killed students and teachers at a school -- led to Britain's 1997 complete ban on handguns. A new book on the subject is now raising serious controversy over there. ['nother hat tip to Dan Gifford]
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Jury awards self-defender $250,000
A Kansas jury has awarded a quarter of million to a person who shot in self-defense. The aggressor came at the defender with a knife, and the defender plugged him with a.357.
A criminal case had been filed against the defender, and that jury acquitted him, but the aggressor filed a civil suit. The defender filed a ballsy counterclaim for battery and trespass, and won big. The quarter-million is just for actual damages, pain and suffering and mental anguish -- the jury decided in favor of giving them, but apparently under state law the amount of punitives is tried separately. As one might guess, the story suggests that the aggressor POed the jury. [Hat tip to Dan Gifford]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Update on Washington open carry law
Via Publicola: here's a blog entry by a fellow who beat a local Washington state prosecution. It sounds as if he was charged, not under the state law, but under a local replica of it, and the court held that was ruled out by the state pre-emption statute.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Unloading on the media
The Bitch Girls have been unloading on the media's reporting on firearms and hunting without the vaguest idea of what they're talking about here and here. I esp. liked the news mention of the long-nosed Luger.
Permalink · media · Comments (0)
Hilarious pro-gun ad
Right here. Caveat: fairly big wmv medial file, but unless you have dialup, well worth it.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)
Poll of Nat'l Ass'n of Chiefs of Police
The National Association of Chiefs of Police have released their 2006 poll of 14,000 members. Remember this is a poll of chiefs of police, who historically have been less pro-gun than the officers on the beat.
92 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun ownership for self-defense or sport.
Ninety-five percent believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
When asked if they opposed citizens obtaining concealed weapons permits, only 40 percent said yes.
[Hat tip to Bill Bailey]
Permalink · contemporary issues
Washington open carry ban
Clayton Cramer has a post on the origins of a Washington state law that makes it illegal to openly carry in cities "under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." Apparently it was enacted in 1969 out of fear that the Black Panthers were going to come to the capitol while armed. They didn't, but the law remains.
Personally, I think it's probably void for vagueness. I can see the intent to intimidate part as proper, but "warrants alarm for the safety" is not a very clear guideline. If a legislature, dropping the arms part, were to outlaw "any conduct or behavior that warrants alarm for the safety of another," I suspect it'd go down in flames under the void for vagueness doctrine. Warrants in whose eyes? Just what is "alarm"? It doesn't forbid conduct that *does* cause alarm, but conduct that "warrants" such, so that a person could be charged even if nobody got alarmed.
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (1)
Motion for contempt in New Orleans case
NRA and SAF have filed a motion to hold the New Orleans mayor in contempt of court. The ground is that New Orleans has refused to return seized guns, in defiance of the court's injunction. Indeed, it appears to arguing that it doesn't have any guns because it didn't seize any, even though some of the confiscations were videotaped.
[Hat tip to Bruce Stern]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (2)
On the teaching of law
I find it interesting how teaching law is now regarded as a career path entirely separate from actually practicing law. The standard entry into academics is not spend some time gathering experience, then come back to teach others how to do it, but rather get a degree, spend 2-3 years clerking for a judge, and then hire on to teach skills that you've never actually used.
The Legal Theory blog is rounding up data on new law school hires for the upcoming year, and looking at it I see:
A majority got their own final degree in 2002 or later;
Almost all (around 90%) got their degree in 2000 or later;
Only a handful have a degree from the late 1990s, and I saw only one whose last degree is in the 1980s.
I don't know much about the other fields of academia, but would suspect this is typical of fields of pure academics (such as my undergrad field of speech communications) and social sciences, where what is being taught is how to study things, not how to do things.
I can't really analogize it to medicine, since a med school prof. will be practicing medicine, or doing research, on a daily basis even as they teach, so they can pick up practical experience while teaching. During the time I was in law school, I knew one prof. who handled some probate cases (and he didn't teach probate, just used it for income) -- apart from him, I knew one professor had handled one case in those three years.
I would suggest that law is a field in which practical experience has, at the very least, solid value to an instructor. I once had a new grad clerk for me on a federal issue and they produced a paper which traced the evolution of a doctrine thru the 5th Cir. and then the 8th Cir. with long commentary on the subtle differences in wording, and thence into the 9th Cir. I pointed out that over the last thirty years the circuits have each become laws unto themselves, we're in the 9th, and all the judge is going to care about is 9th circuit caselaw, period, if it exists, and it does. The other approach might do for a law review article, but in a courtroom will just bore the judge and make him doubt your analytical skills... why go into detail on choice of wording in other circuits, and make him wait until the end to mention there's several 9th Circuit cases? It's also useful to know that (at least here) in civil cases judges look to (1) is there Arizona caselaw? (2) If not, what does the Restatement say? You can pull up all the out of state caselaw and ALR cites you want, but if there's a Restatement on the subject, that will win. It's useful to know that the law of standing to sue is in utter disarray (whereas reading a few Supreme Court rulings in a casebook makes it sound rather precise), and in disarray because judges use it as a "dump button" for cases they'd rather not touch. It's hard to understand Miranda v. Arizona except against the background of trial judges hating to suppress evidence, so the Supreme Court figures it has to create a "bright line" rule even if it produces strange results.
Interesting events in Illinois
Some Illinois lawmakers want an "assault weapon" ban -- and certain manufacturers located in the state, e.g., Springfield Armory, Armalite, Les Baer Custom and Rock River Arms Inc -- say they'll pull out of the state if it passes. The Pantagraph has the story.
[Update: if they want a gun-friendly state, they ought to consider Arizona. You can carry a holstered gun in your glove compartment, without a CCW permit. I used to do that, and was stopped twice for traffic violations. I did the polite thing and told the officer before reaching for my registration. One of them asked my opinion on my .45, since he was thinking about buying one. The other told me how easy it was to get a CCW permit "and then you can carry *anywhere* concealed!"]
Permalink · contemporary issues · Comments (3)
Unmanned and armed helicopter
Defense Tech reports on experimental arming of a small (7' long by 2' high) helicopter that's being marketed for, among other things, convoy escort. (It has a radio control range of about 1.5 miles). Originally designed for recon, they're now outfitting it with a full auto shotgun that can fire anything from birdshot to high explosives. I want one, but since the price tag is a million, I may have to wait a while.
Instapunk on Swedish gun laws
The always-interesting Instapunk has a note on Swedish laws and gun laws in particular. Yes, Sweden has stricter gun laws than the US, and a lower homicide rate -- but other Scandanvian countries have much looser gun laws than Sweden, and lower homicide rates that that country.
[The notes about regimentation -- until fairly recently, alcohol was rationed by the government, to make sure nobody could drink more than it felt proper -- remind me of a couple of jokes about Germany. (1) You can't have a revolution in Germany, because the police won't issue the permit; (2) You can't have anti-government riots, either, because all the government buildings have "keep off the grass" signs in front of them.]
Permalink · non-US · Comments (5)
Women on Target
The Birmingham News has an article on the NRA's Women on Target program. It notes that surveys show over 4 million American women go in for target shooting, and 2 million hunt, and 23,000 have participated in the NRA program.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (0)
Storming the White House
Word is that Moonbats International plans to storm the White House on March 15, accompanied by Michael Moore. (Not likely--Mike just would like the publicity that comes from making the claim. He's going to be busy doing his corporate taxes that day anyway).
In past years, stuff like that was a way to get quick publicity. Getting arrested outside the South African embassy was quite the fad in the early 80s. Get arrested, booked, and released, and then the prosecutor will drop charges. Or if you get really annoying, judge might impose a $50 fine. I rather suspect that, post 9/11, an attempt to actually force your way into the White House might be met with a more vigorous response. Secret Service isn't famous for wimping out when facing something like that, and probably has a bunch of crowd control tools that need testing. Anyone getting past that might just face much older tools, such as the 7.62 NATO.
Report on Richmond gun show hearings
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has an article on the Feb. 28 hearings, when ATFE answered the criticisms.
Here's another article.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
Armed journalists in Iraq
Opinio Juris has a posting on journalists applying for gun permits in Iraq (sounds like a plan to me!) and disputing the International News Safety Institute's claim that packing in self-defense might lose them Geneva Convention protections. (The protective value of which lies in ... oh, having the INSI issue an open letter condemning your decapitation).
[via Gene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.