« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 2007
Feinstein has a MAJOR conflict of interest
Story here. Wonder why the MSM has carried nothing on it?
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Oh, the irony...
Snowflakes in Hell reports that Mayor Street of Philadelphia is meeting with other anti-gun mayors on pushing for more gun restrictions.
The summit is being held at the National Constitution Center.
Oregon court rules no duty to retreat
The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that there is no duty to retreat under existing statutes.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Commentary on Parker & bill to repeal DC law
SayUncle has it.
Webb staffer gun incident
Instapundit has a good roundup on the matter.
Sounds like a heck of a squad auto weapon
A webpage for the Ultimax SAW. I'm happy to see American inventors trying their best, although politics too often matters more than good weapons design. It's amazing to reflect how many American military firearms are the result of individual inventors, or small firms... the government tends to struggle on with overly complex, overly expensive space-age tinkering, while individuals work on things that ... well, work. The last purely government design that I can think of is the M-1/M-14, and even that was the work of a brilliant individual, John Garand. And of course the Soviet AK-47 breakthru was the work of one bright tank officer who figured he could make a better gun than any in use.
Hat tip to reader Spiker for this link.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (11)
Texas gets "no retreat law"
Texas governor Rick Perry has signed a no-retreat law.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Public Defender proves a wussie
I mean, who'd want to be defended by someone who gets green around the gills when a judge clears leather during a courtroom brawl?
Crime Stats and a con job
Here's the story (hat tip to Don Kates).
"It is a remarkable con job.
Over the last six months, the Police Executive Research Forum, the chief executives of primarily large police departments, has gotten the media concerned that the country is threatened by a sudden upsurge in violent crime and murder.
A New York Times story on March 9th started the current round of hysteria with the headline that "Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge."
An earlier front-page story in January in USA Today caused a similar ruckus.
One wonders whether the reporters ever thought of getting a critical comment for their story.
.....
It becomes a lot less scary when one realizes that the violent crime rate fell for 13 straight years, a total drop of 39 percent, before increasing in 2005 by less than 1 percent.
The Forum even referred to this minuscule one-year increase as a "trend.""
And that's just the beginning.... read the entire story. They use number of crimes rather than rates, hand-pick certain jurisdictions, omit those violent crimes whose numbers and rates fell, etc., etc...
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
Jim Webb staffer incident
Word in DC is that a staffer of Sen. Jim Webb was arrested for carrying pistol, possibly his own, into a Senate building. I thought Webb showed great potential for becoming the Right Sort of Democrat, and this tends to confirm it.
More on Guliani on guns
John Lott has an interesting Guliani quote to the effect that gunmakers must know they are feeding an illegal market because they make 600-700% of the number of guns needed to fill the legal market,
Permalink · Politics · Comments (7)
Swiss Left parties attack "nation of riflemen" tradition
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
New Orleans residents arming themselves
Rocky Mtn News reports:
"Sixty-four-year-old Vivian Westerman rode out Hurricane Katrina in her 19th-century house. So terrible was the experience that she wanted two things before the 2006 season arrived: a backup power source and a gun. "I got a 6,000-watt generator and the cutest little Smith & Wesson, snub-nose .38 you ever saw...""
Article on Guliani and guns
Human Events has one.
VA passes anti-entrapment bill
VA has passed the bill forbidding private entrapment of gun dealers, HB 2653. I'm informed it was signed into law yesterday.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
DC City Council hearings on gun law
Why is the DC Council even hearing (and Marion Barry even proposing) a (temporary) repeal of its handgun prohibition? I dunno. To moot the Parker case, and prevent it from doing the damage it might do, in a Supreme Court appeal, to the antigun cause? Or because they doubt the gun law's effectiveness? Either motivation would require more judgment and foresight than I'd easily credit to Barry or the Council. I have no third explanation.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (10)
Washington Examiner on Parker case
The favorable editorial is here.
WaPo on Parker case and self defense
Here's the story.
Good news from Ohio
Bitter reports that, now that Ohio passed a local pre-emption bill, the Mayor of Cleveland has ordered police to keep on making arrests under its local law.
The good news is that the head of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association has told officers not to follow the order, because it's plainly illegal. Hurrah!
Cathy Seipp has passed on.
Cathy Seipp, of Cathy's World, and the Nat'l Review Online's "from the Left Coast," has died. Memorial here.
It points out the paradox that research on lung cancer, a major killer (it got my ex a few years ago) is grossly underfunded in proportion to its toll: $950 in research money per lung cancer death, compared to $8800 for breast cancer and $34,000 for AIDS. A product of what happens when the government handles a field: spending is driven by politics and PR, rather than by benefit and harm.
As a friend, with a doctorate in biochemistry, points out, we like to think of cancer like any other illness, with a definite cause. You can't get the flu without exposure to flu viruses. But in fact it's largely pure luck. We're trillions of dividing cells, and some are flawed. Usually the flaw is something fatal to the cell itself, or our immune system hunts it down. Cancer happens when one cell, just one (every case starts with a single cell) has the seven (I think) mutations required, and the immune system doesn't spot it. Exposure to carcinogens isn't required -- they just increase the odds of mutations somewhat. Conversely, you can swim in agent orange daily and not develop it, if the right mutation doesn't happen or your immune system spots the cell and kills it.
Post mortem on Maryland "assault weapons" bill
The Armed Canadian has it. Sounds like a stupid and oppressive bill may have been made worse by inept drafting.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (0)
Blogging juror raises a problem
If chosen for a criminal jury, it's best not to blog the trial. And if you do, make entries like " listen[ing] to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence."
NJ ruling touching upon right to arms
Ev Nappan has a posting regarding a NJ Superior Court ruling (I think the Superior Ct. is, in NJ, the appellate court). Gist appears to be that NJ passed a law providing that no one who had had guns seized and not returned, for any reason, loses his firearm purchase permit. The plaintiff had had guns seized and had voluntarily given them up, and was denied a permit. The court holds that plaintiff had a second amenment right, and it could not be unknowingly waived by voluntarily giving up firearms.
[hat tip to a Buckeye Firearms Assn volunteer]
An honest approach
From the New Republic (registration required) comes an honest approach: the author agrees that the historical/legal evidence all points to an individual right to arms, notes that his values disagree with this, and so calls for a repeal of it by democratic processes. Quite a bit more honest than the usual anti-individual right argument. Key portions of the article are in extended remarks.
"But, critically, judges shouldn't be in charge of stripping disfavored rights from the Constitution. If the courts can simply make gun rights disappear, what happens when the First Amendment becomes embarrassing or inconvenient? It corrodes the very idea of a written Constitution when the document means, in practice, the opposite of what its text says. ... It's true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now; that doesn't bother me. It should be hard to take away a fundamental right. But that doesn't make it less wrong to ask [Judge] Silberman and his colleagues to relieve the political culture of the obligation of trying."
Continue reading "An honest approach"
Mystery -- Amer for Gun Safety website down
The website of Americans for Gun Safety (the antigun group founded by Monster.com millionaire Andrew McKelvey) shows only "Account for domain www.americansforgunsafety.com has been suspended." It's reportedly been like that for days. Anyone have any idea why?
Update in light of comments: www.third-way.com, set up by the Third Way Institute, is underwritten by the Tides Center. Here's the webpage on the support. Tides is famous for pumping money to left causes, and also for serving as a nonprofit money laundering outfit. If a person or group wants to finance a cause, but might be embarassed by that being known, they give to the Tides Center with a stipulation that it go to the cause. It appears that AGS's supporters really like to keep things secret, since these funds go from Tides to Third Way to AGS.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
Shooting matches
A basketball game ends in riot.
"The fight then spilled into the streets, and at one point shots were fired, police said. CBS 2 has exclusive video of hundreds of fans fighting in the stands and of NYPD officers racing through the streets in response to continued violence. Cops reportedly made 21 arrests, though that number could still grow as the details of the melee are finally sorted out. "
I once asked a buddy ... what would be the concept of sports hooliganism at the National Matches?" He replied "Two spectators were given dirty looks after they muttered 'Semper Fi" too loudly.'"
Permalink · shooting · Comments (2)
"Signs of Life in the Second Amendment"
An article by Steve Chapman.
"For nearly 70 years, the Second Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions -- missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
......
The decision does not prove that the Second Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the Second Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms."
Via Instapundit.
George Will on the Parker case
Here's his Townhall article.
Oh, and here's a WaPo article on the Parker attorneys. It's a bit of a hit piece (keeps on returning to his home, assets, etc., as if that had any relevance to his case), but actually for the Post is quite favorable.
Pretty heavy-handed law enforcement
Story here. Deputies, sent to serve civil papers on a fellow, find his wife closing the garage door, take her down and charge her with obstruction (of service of process?), enter his house without a warrant, wind up in a fight, and charge the homeowner with six felony counts.
Orlando Sentinel & Puerto Rican crime rates
Puerto Rico has a high crime rate: the Orlando Sentinel says it must be due to Florida's law gun laws.
[Link updated, thanks to comment]
Permalink · media · Comments (4)
Response to Roanoke (VA) Times printing name of CCW permittees
An email from VCDL:
"The RT's reckless actions have endangered lives, as there are people on that CHP list who are under threat from violent ex-spouses or from criminals they have helped put in jail.
I have been returning calls from concerned gun owners and the stories are heartbreaking and intense. One woman's mother wakens at the slightest sound in the middle of the night and she calls the police and her daughter. She is living in constant fear that the person who has threatened to kill her has now found her address complements of the Roanoke Times.
Some people are looking at moving immediately.
Fortunately, your combined efforts shutdown the database within one day, hopefully before too many bad guys had a chance to use it.
I called the Fredericksburg Freelance-Press and the King George Journal-Press on Friday. Both papers are still printing the names and other information on local CHP holders.
I explained the seriousness of what they are doing. I said that there is nothing to be gained by printing permit holder information, but a lot to be lost."
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (1)
So much for the Euro approach
Sounds to me as if the Netherlanders need a right to arms.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Md "assault weapon" bill dies in committee
Brady Campaign is outraged, and calling upon members to call Md Senator Jim Brochin at 410-841-3648 to protest his vote against the bill, which led to it dying in committee on a 5-5 vote.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
Speaking of war tropies...
Just read a story about how Russians discovered a Soviet T-34 and extracted it from the bottom of a lake. It had been captured by the Nazis, explaining why a Soviet model had Nazi markings. Story and photos here.
Article on Parker
Human Events has a good piece on it.
"But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed."
BTW, I, like others, have tended to refer to Parker as "the Cato case," I suppose on the assumption that everything of significance in Washington just has to be pushed by a group of some sort. It was actually brought by two attorneys, Alan Gura and Bob Levy, out of their own pockets. Levy holds a fellowship with Cato, but the case isn't 'in the line of official duty,' as it were.
Another college gun group
This one at Ohio State, with gun safety classes for students for $5 a pop, plus bowling pin competitions for fun.
Cleveland suing Ohio over pre-emption
Cleveland is suing Ohio over the recent State pre-emption law.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Don't bring a pellet gun to a gunfight
CCW licensee shoots a man who tried to rob him with a pellet gun that looked like a .45
Hat tip to Dan Gifford.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (1)
Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act introduced
Text is in extended remarks, below. Basically, it represents a Title II amnesty for veterans who brought back NFA war trophies, so that they or their families could now register them despite the 1986 ban.
I once had a client, 20-30 years ago, who had a Colt "Potato Digger" machinegun sitting in his closet unregistered. He'd gotten it in Europe during WWII somehow and brought it back. Also heard of a fellow who died and whose estate found itself in possession of a 13.2 mm machinegun from WWI, designed to deal with low-level dirrigibles (it fired specially modified tracers and incendiaries intended to set their helium on fire). They had to strip it of parts and cut up the receiver, since there was no way to register it now.
UPDATE: German blimps were filled with hydrogen, since Germany had no supplies of helium (and I think a postwar embargo of it led to the Hindenburg still using it -- helium being then a munition of war). If I remember, the incendiary slugs were funny things. You couldn't have them ignite upon impact, since they'd pass thru a dirigible while hitting nothing but a bit of fabric. So they had phosphorus in the core, with little holes thru the jacket sealed by soft solder. When the projectile heated up due to air friction, the solder melted and jets of flame would spew out around the bullet, hopefully igniting the hydrogen at points of entry and exit (or else touching off hydrogen released by a preceding bullet in the burst).
Continue reading "Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act introduced"
The Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions
Wish I'd thought of that title.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (2)
Now this is nifty!
For the US military: a GPS directed missile that can hit within 10 ft. of a target from 40 miles away.
Rivrdog comments, in a post blocked for some reason by the spam filter:
Sorry, the army's new MRLS missile has been trumped - by the Redlegs. On Future Weapons (Discovery Channel and Military Channel), they covered the new Swedish semi-automatic 155mm howitzer, the Archer, which can shoot almost that far. When they get the new US Army fin-stabilized, GPS-guided 155mm round, that long barreled Borors-on-steroids will be able to do what the missile does, only cheaper and MUCH more rapidly. The Archer fires so rapidly (20 rds/min) that it can put a barrage of 6 ordinary rounds on the same target at the same time, just by altering the angle of elevation. The tube deploys in 40 seconds and takes down as fast, with a crew of two, and on it's own all-terrain mover like a self-propelled howitzer (but it has only minimal armor, in the driving cab.
The arty piece has an extra-long barrel that they didn't talk about AT ALL on the program, because the technology of taming the whip of a barrel that long (and that lightweight) must BE THE SECRET OF THE CENTURY!
The piece also has sophisticated sights so that it can be used for very accurate direct fire. They fired on a compact automobile 3 miles away and scored a cold-tube first shot direct hit. Now, imagine you are a tank. This thing can probably hit you (with a 130# shell) at twice the range you can shoot at the arty piece at.
I'm impressed, but we'll have to stop buying Volvos if we buy many of these, or else the Swedes will get so rich that even they might make Socialism work, and THEN we'd REALLY be in trouble!
Word on the street is that the Excalibur, as many as 6 prototypes, have
already been field-tested in Iraq or Afghanistan. Baqouba Province comes
to mind somehow...
Texas Senate approves Castle Doctrine
The Texas Senate passed a "Castle Doctrine" bill by a 30-0 vote.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Ohio CCW revision takes effect tommorrow
Story here.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (0)
NRO on Parker case
Bob Levy has an article in National Review Online.
And this just in -- the Parker case leads Jesse Jackson to complaint of activist judges. He goes to town on the federal judiciary, too: "hey are prepared to trample the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures to implant their policies from the bench. The U.S. courts are now packed with these ideologues. And the decision last week shows that the civilizing advances of recent decades -- in civil rights, gun control, workers' rights, women's rights -- are now at risk from this marauding horde."
I guess it does matter just whose ox is being gored...
What's interesting is that in ALL of the media criticism of the decision, I have yet to hear one statement that the decision was incorrect, poorly reasoned, not based on authority, or, in short, wrong.
Marion Barry continues to self-destruct
Former DC mayor (and present councilman) Marion Barry managed to avoid being jailed for a probation violation today. He'd been convicted of failing to pay income tax for 1999-2004, and given probation on the condition he start paying taxes and obey the law. Well, he sorta forgot to file his 2005 DC and Federal returns. And last November he tested position for cocaine and pot.
Gad, the guy is 71 years old. I think it was Cicero who remarked, of a skirt-chasing Roman senator, that old age has embarassments enough, one need not add to them those of youth.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Will the Supremes take Parker?
There's a debate over at Volokh Conspiracy. Prof. Kerr says yes, Prof. Barnett says no.
Online political incorrect comedy
Just took a look at OurCountry.com. It's pretty funny...
Bob Levy op-ed on Parker case
It's suprising to me that the Post printed it, but they did (pdf file)
VA newspaper prints lists of CCW permittees
It's the Roanoke Times.
"People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office."
Brady Campaign and Parker v. DC
Brady has long been claiming it only backs "reasonable" gun laws. In Parker v. DC, the DC Circuit indicated that maybe handgun registration might be OK, but total prohibition (and requiirement that guns be kept disassembled so as to be useless in self-defense) was not.
“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (3)
SCOTUSBlog on Parker v. DC
It's here.
Parker v. DC and certiorari
I've been giving some thought to this. DC will certainly go for rehearing en banc, and if that doesn't change things (probably not), seek Supreme Court review (petition for a writ of certiorari, to use the technical term). Or a rehearing en banc does change the result, and the plaintiff seeks certiorari. What's the result? (It takes four votes to grant the writ and take the case, tho it obviously takes five to win). I think the Court grants cert. My reasons:
1. The strongest reason for granting cert. is that the courts of appeals have split on an important issue of law. The subordinates are squabbling, one law applies in part of the US and other law in other parts, time for the boss to settle the issue. That's far, FAR more important than "the lower court screwed up." With Emerson, we had a circuit split. But now there are two circuits that say it's an individual right, versus nine or so that say it isn't. Hard to write off TWO circuit rulings as a minor aberration, something you can overlook or let percolate for a while.
2. Even with a split limited to the Fifth Circuit, Emerson, Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation hearing as much as said he'd vote to grant cert.
3. The last time a Second Amendment case came to the Supremes, Silvyera or whatever (I could never spell the name right) it was a very close matter. The Supremes conferenced (voted) and ordered the state to file an opposition, which is pretty rare. That has to mean that even then, before Roberts and Alito, and with only one circuit holding for an individual right, there were enough votes to take and enough fence-sitters to add up to four or more. And that case challenged a state law, so that 14th Amendment incorporation was involved, too.
4. Perhaps most important: the venue rule is that you can sue the federal government where you were harmed, or in DC. The government legally "resides" in DC, and can be sued there even if the case has nothing to do with DC. Parker concerns a DC ordinance, not a federal law. Still, anyone challenging a federal gun law can file in DC, where the Parker ruling applies. (The one limit is that the DC Circuit has a stricter standard than some places as to who can challenge a gun law without having been prosecuted under it). A ruling from the DC Circuit, on something that affects federal law, is a ruling that can hardly be ignored.
So I suppose a scholar would say in six months or a year it's Armageddon. I have a scholarly streak, but as a litigator, I prefer "Odin! Valahalla!"
[Update: somewhere I read that nine circuits had gone for collective right, I haven't really counted. The DC Circuit is one of the few that has never committed one way or the other, which doubtless made a challenge to the DC law attractive -- as did the fact that it's a complete ban on handguns.]
CCW permitee holders stop street shooter
In Memphis, two CCW permitees stop and arrest a gunman who was firing at cars.
Don't hold your breath on the national media picking this story up.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (1)
WaPo raves about DC decision
Here's the editorial.
"this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded..."
"it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights. "
[At least they do give a mention to the Cato Institute, which actually filed the suit and handled the appeal. It's quite obvious that the Post hates the Second Amendment, and hates the NRA, so anytime it covers the first it has to insert the second].
" Nor, for that matter, would it serve the nation's interest to leave this dangerous ruling unchallenged."
I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Post ever (and I lived in DC and read it for nearly ten years) going this wild over a court decision. It's amusing that in the entire editorial attacking the decision, not one mention is made of its reasoning or basis. The Post's only concern is with its result.
Permalink · media · Comments (5)
Parker v. DC decision in pdf
Here it is. And you can download the Parker pleadings and briefs here. And here's professor Volokh's take on a NY Times article on the case, which omitted Emerson and portrayed this as the only time a circuit court went with the individual rights view.
I'd guess DC will first try for an en banc rehearing (normally appellate cases are decided by a 3 judge panel; rehearing en banc means you get a hearing before the entire circuit, say 20 judges). Whoever loses there will go for cert.
And I'd give HIGH odds on a grant.
1. The last time a 2nd Amendment case went up, the Silvy.. Silvyera ... I forget how to spell it, the Supremes held a conference (private vote) and ordered the state to respond to the petition. Then they held a second conference and didn't take it. That tells me it was very close, there were enough fence-sitters to have granted it.
2. The Chief Justice in confirmation hearings showed a lot of interest and as much as said he'd vote for cert.
3. It's now two Circuits splitting for an individual right, not one.
4. The other Emerson, held for a right but found a way to uphold the statute. This time the statute was struck down, a much clearer conflict in terms of result.
5. It'll be all over the front page of the Washington Post tommorrow. Justices are human and read the papers.
UPDATE: it's interesting to note that the "shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" case has in fact been abandoned. The reason is that it overstated the rule -- and held some WWI lefties could be punished for handing out leaflets that told draftees should be aware of their rights. Aha -- if given the leaflets, they might be tempted to resist the draft, which would be illegal, hence the leafleteers could be imprisoned, since their conduct threatened to cause a breach of the laws, just as shouting 'fire' might lead to a panic and deaths. Nevermind that the intent in distributing the leaflets may not have been to cause a violation of the laws.
Yes, maybe shouting such a false warning might be forbidden today, but the extrapolation to any utterance that causes harm (however unintentionally or remotely) can be punished is no longer the case.
DC handgun ban stricken by DC Circuit
Just got word that Cato's suit against the DC gun ban, on 2d Amendment grounds, won. I'm just reading the decision now. Some segments I'll cut and paste:
'The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., “the states.” See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 227. These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the people” across the Bill of Rights."
"In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual. This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today."
"The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. "
"With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny and oppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned, would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state. But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary. See Silveira, 328 F.3d at 569-70 (dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is surely more important than the probability of overall success in a full-out armed conflict."
" The term “bear Arms” is obviously susceptible to a military construction. But it is not accurate to construe it exclusively so. First, the word “bear” in this context is simply a more formal synonym for “carry,” i.e., “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” The Oxford English Dictionary and the original Webster’s list the primary meaning of “bear” as “to support” or “to carry.” See Silveira, 328 F.3d at 573 (Kleinfeld, J.). Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary—which the Supreme Court often relies upon to ascertain the founding-era understanding of text, see, e.g., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 199 (2003)—is in accord. The first three definitions for “bear” are “to carry as a burden or carry as a mark of authority.”
"The District claims that Miller’s historical account of the “Militia” supports its position. Yet according to Miller, the militia included “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence” who were “enrolled for military discipline.” And Miller’s expansive definition of the militia—qualitatively different from the District’s concept—is in accord with the second Militia Act of 1792"
"The District argues that the modifier “well regulated” means that “[t]he militia was not individuals acting on their own; one cannot be a one-person militia.” We quite agree that the militia was a collective body designed to act in concert. But we disagree with the District that the use of “well regulated” in the constitutional text somehow turns the popular militia embodied in the 1792 Act into a “select” militia that consisted of semi-professional soldiers like our current National Guard. Contemporaneous legislation once again provides us with guidance in reading ambiguous constitutional text. See Op. at 30; see also Silveira, 328 F.3d at 579-80 (Kleinfeld, J.). "
"The second Militia Act provides a detailed list of directions to both individuals and states that we take as an indication of what the drafters of the Second Amendment contemplated as a “well regulated Militia.” It will be recalled, the second Militia Act requires that eligible citizens enroll in the militia and, within six months, arm themselves accordingly. Subsequent to enrollment, arming oneself became the first duty of all militiamen. See Silveira, 328 F.3d at 581 (Kleinfeld, J.). The Act goes on to require of the states that the militiamen be notified of their enrollment; that within one year, the states pass laws to arrange the militia into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as well as appoint various militia officers; that there be an Adjutant General appointed in each state to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps, and so on. The statute thus makes clear that these requirements were independent of each other, i.e., militiamen were obligated to arm themselves regardless of the organization provided by the states, and the states were obligated to organize the militia, regardless of whether individuals had armed themselves in accordance with the statute. We take these dual requirements—that citizens were properly supplied with arms and subject to organization by the states (as distinct from actually organized)—to be a clear indication of what the authors of the Second Amendment contemplated as a “well regulated Militia.” "
"On the question whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, the Court’s opinion in Miller is most notable for what it omits. The government’s first argument in its Miller brief was that “the right secured by [the Second Amendment] to the people to keep and bear arms is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” Appellant’s Br. at 15, 307 U.S. 704 (No. 696). This is a version of the collective right model. Like the Fifth Circuit, we think it is significant that the Court did not decide the case on this, the government’s primary argument. Emerson, 270 F.3d at 222. Rather, the Court followed the logic of the government’s secondary position, which was that a shortbarreled shotgun was not within the scope of the term “Arms” in the Second Amendment. "
"By the terms of the second Militia Act of 1792, all militiamen were given six months from the date of their enrollment to outfit themselves with “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder . . . .” Act of May 8, 1792, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271 (emphasis added). Commissioned officers had somewhat more onerous requirements. The Act demanded that, in addition to the foregoing, they “shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon . . . .” Id. at 271-72. Still further demands were placed on the artillery officers, who were to be “armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge-box to contain twelve cartridges . . . .” Id. at 272."
"We take the outfitting requirements of the second Militia Act to list precisely those weapons that would have satisfied the two prongs of the Miller arms test. They bore a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” because they were the very arms needed for militia service. And by the terms of the Act, they were to be personally owned and “of the kind in common use at the time.” The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards. Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in 1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth Amendment standards to thermal imaging search). That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable “to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .” State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82. Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised. Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401 (excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from militia duty). On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. See Volokh, supra, at 801-07. 17 D.C. Code § 7-2502.02 18 prohibits the registration of a pistol not registered in the District by the applicant prior to 1976. 19 The District contends that since it only bans one type of firearm, “residents still have access to hundreds more,” and thus its prohibition does not implicate the Second Amendment because it does not threaten total disarmament. We think that argument frivolous. It could be similarly contended that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted. Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are “Arms” referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them. See Kerner, 107 S.E. at 225 (“To exclude all pistols . . . is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of . . . ‘arms’ which the people are entitled to bear.”). Indeed, the pistol is the most preferred firearm in the nation to “keep” and use for protection of one’s home and family. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 150, 182-83 (1995). And, as we have noted, the Second Amendment’s premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting). D.C. Code § 22-4504 20 restricts separately the carrying of a pistol. Appellant Heller challenges this provision and a companion provision, § 22-4506, insofar as they appear to ban moving a handgun from room to room in one’s own house, even if one has lawfully registered the firearm (an interpretation the District does not dispute). In order to carry a pistol anywhere in the District (inside or outside the home), one must apply for and obtain an additional license from the Chief of Police, whom the Code gives complete discretion to deny license applications. Heller does not claim a legal right to carry a handgun outside his home, so we need not consider the more difficult issue whether the District can ban the carrying of handguns in public, or in automobiles. It is sufficient for us to conclude that just as the District may not flatly ban the keeping of a handgun in the home, obviously it may not prevent it from being moved throughout one’s house. Such a restriction would negate the lawful use upon which the right was premised—i.e, self-defense. Finally, there is the District’s requirement under D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 that a registered firearm be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device, unless such firearm is kept at [a] place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” This provision bars Heller from lawfully using a handgun for self protection in the home because the statute allows only for use of a firearm during recreational activities. As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.” Heller does not appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a “functional” firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional. VI For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded. Since there are no material questions of fact in dispute, the district court is ordered to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer for relief contained in appellants’ complaint.
Calif court supresses result of search based on NFA inspection
Story here. Sounds as if the ATF inspectors checked his title II inventory, noticed he had non-NFA guns banned under the CA ban on "assault weapons," and alerted State authorities.
The court noted that there are statutory immunities regarding NFA information (put in place to prevent an argument that the amended NFA requires self-incrimination, as the Supremes had held the original NFA did require), and that (I think, the article is unclear) that includes information uncovered during inspection of an NFA dealer's inventory and records.
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (5)
Self defense against terrorist attack
A report from South Africa, where an armed churchgoer halted the St. James Massacre. Pretty gutsy fellow -- had only a snub-nose and so had to creep up on them. He's authored a book on self-defense, available on the page.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Now, this is the media I'm used to
The Florida Sun-Sentinel runs a long series on the CCW permit system. All utterly impartial of course, with headlines like:
"Police, sheriff groups back tighter restrictions on state's gun laws"
"Florida legislator targets concealed weapons permits of reckless users"
"Gov. Crist calls for meeting on loopholes in concealed weapons law"
"Who carries a gun? It's a state secret"
"Marion Hammer, NRA lobbyist"
"Errors, weak laws keep concealed weapons in questionable hands around Florida"
"Most states draw tougher lines on guns"
"Want a gun? Florida makes it easy"
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
Get this fellow some help
From the Philadelpha Inquirer, a local politican writing about why he wants more gun control. Excerpts:
"AS I RISE from my restless night"
"Instantly, I feel a throbbing in my head and a racing pulse."
"this level of pain"
"these feelings of pain, frustration, confusion and maybe anger"
"Angry, frustrated, confused, sold out, left out - take your pick."
If watching mayoral candidates debate and reading the paper does that to this fellow, I'd hate to think what a real tragedy would do.
Women getting CCW permits in TN
The Tennessean notes that last year 9,921 women in that state got ccw permits, an increase of 80% over 2004.
Permalink · women & guns · Comments (0)
Jim Zumbo letter to CCRKBA
It's here.
Guns and the Civil Rights Movement
At Townhall, Ken Blackwell has an column on the role played by arms and armed men in the civil rights movement, and notes how conventional histories of that movement play it town.
Hat tip to the Kopel Newsletter.
Permalink · civil rights struggle · Comments (1)
Media push in WI
A station is announcing that its investigation shows non-dealers can legally sell to felons. No mention of the fact that a non-dealer selling to a felon has been a federal felony since 1986. The push is actually to require background checks for private sales.
[Light blogging today--I'm on the way home, and doing this in a hotel where I wound up stranded overnight].
Permalink · media · Comments (0)
Suggestion: teach Britney to hunt as returning to normalcy
Doug Giles has a suggestion: teach Britney Spears to shoot and hunt as a step toward returning to normalcy.
(Hat tip to Bill Bailey)
Permalink · celebrities · Comments (0)
More on Dunblane Massacre
Clayton Cramer has an extensive post on the Dunblane school massacre, with interesting notes on the documents the gov't has sealed for 100 years. Little things like the killer's autopsy, his correspondence with various politicians, little things like that.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
Reasons for slow blogging
I'm in DC at Nat'l Conservative Action Political Conference for the weekend. It was really fun to meet Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart and some others. I'm now in a hotel room out in Falls Church VA (cheapest room I could find near a Metro). It's under a mile from where I lived 1982-1990.
Don Kates' take on Guiliani
An email from Don Kates:
Throughout his political career Bill Clinton’s "position on the Second
Amendment" was a bald-faced lie. Every time the subject arose he falsely
proclaimed his "belief in the Second Amendment." Insofar as there was
any truth in this scam, what Clinton meant was that he believed that the
Second Amendment does not mean anything.
Rudy Giuliani employs the exact same scam in the exact same way by
proclaiming that he believes in the Second Amendment. By carefully
reviewing his assertions in the context of his record it is possible to
ferret out his real beliefs and intended program. He believes that
people living in low crime areas may be allowed (as a privilege, not a
right) to have guns for sport. But no one other than public employees
and the politically powerful has a right to possess firearms for
self-defense. Worse yet, he believes the key to reducing crime consists
of disarming everyone who believes in a right to possess arms for
self-defense and who lives in an area where the incidence of crime is
such that they have some likelihood of using arms for self-defense.
Giuliani is, in short, a paradigm Republican, i.e., someone who is
dedicated to the interests of Big Business and for whom the rights of
little people are, at best, easily dispensable in the interest of public
safety (read Big Business).
If I were Sarah Brady faced with a contest between Hillary and Rudy I
would vote for Rudy. Each wants to ban and confiscate guns. But it is
far less likely that a Democrat could get away with trying to outlaw gun
ownership than that Rudy could do so. Remember that Harry Truman could
not end the Korean War, but Eisenhower could. And that no Democratic
president could come to detente with Russia or China but Nixon could.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
AZ bill to create a militia
There's a bill that has been introduced in AZ to create a volunteer state defense force, under State control. Here's the story.
Hat tip to Robert Gallagher of 2nd Watch.
Permalink · militia · Comments (1)
Guns review of documentary
David Codrea's War on Guns has his review of my documentary.
Update: link fixed. I was typing a little fast on an unfamiliar laptop, while here in the DC area.
Backer of British gun ban recants a little
Ian Bell was one of the principal backers of the (final) British gun ban, in the wake of the Dunblane school massacre. Today, he takes a somewhat different position. It's a long article, and he still has a visceral dislike for guns, but he ends:
"Back then, I believed every word. America had, and has, too many of the instruments that Thomas Hamilton found so alluring. Yet almost 11 years on, what do I read, and what do I say?
I read of three London teenagers murdered in the space of 11 days. I read of firearms "incidents" spreading like an epidemic across our cities. I read of Tony Blair holding a Downing Street summit on a crisis that seems - call me naive - a greater threat to many communities than any terrorism.
What I say then becomes obvious: my idea didn't work. In fact, I begin to thread certain fears together, like links in a chain. Here's one: if even London teenagers can provide themselves with the means to kill 15-year-old Billy Cox in his bedroom, guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly.
......
Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?"
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
Boston police run amok again
The Department of Homeland Stupidity has the story. Hearing a report of a suspicious object, they called in the SWAT team and blew it up. Only to find out it was a traffic counter placed by the transportation department.
Utah guns on campus & choosing roommates
Utah has passed a statute allowing guns on campus, and also allowing students to pick a roommate who doesn't have a CCW license if they desire.
[Hat tip to Dan Gifford]
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Appellate rulings -- what attorneys have to deal with
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, there is a discussion of a case just argued in the Supreme Court. It's a 1983 (deprivation of civil rights) suit arising out of a policecar ramming, or nudging, a fleeing car in a chase, and the argument that was unreasonable force (driver crashed and was killed). Forunately for the officer, his squadcar had a camera running, and the Justices were making remarks like who do we believe, the lower court's findings or our own eyes? The Circuit court's rendition of facts makes it sound like a relatively mild chase ... why, the driver slowed down to make turns, no one was in danger. But viewing the tape brings home that, well, he sorta had to slow for turns, since he was doing 90-100 mph thru an urban area, and the fact that no one had been endangered (yet) was purest luck.