« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
June 2007
Supreme Court Oct. Term '06 analysis
Pdf file here. No big surprises. Kennedy, with the swing vote, determined 100% of the 5-4s. The liberal wing could only win by getting him (in the past, they could win by getting either him or O'Connor). Kennedy tended to vote with the conservative wing about twice as often as with the liberal wing.
Number of decisions continues down -- 68 this Term, compared to 71 last Term and 107 in 1991. 72% involved reversals. Ninth Circuit was by far the target of cert. grants -- 29%, compared to runner-up 6th Circuit at 10%. Ninth Circuit got an 86% reversal rate, above the average.
A third of the rulings were 5-4s, and a quarter were unanimous.
RIP Madeleine Pelner Cosman
From Don Kates: Madeleine Pelner Cosman has passed on. She was the author of "Medicalizing Guns," available here. Her obituary makes is clear that she would have agreed with Heinlien's dictum that a person should be able to do everything, "specialization is for insects!" She could do medieval cooking, play a lute, fly a plane, shoot a gun, publish papers in medical journals, and engage in politics.
"Ms. Cosman also leaves behind a vast library of illuminated manuscripts and a large collection of handguns."
Real experiences
Here, experiences with stalkers, firearms, and gun control. The author is a scriptwriter, and it reads a bit like that.
Another illustration of how far things have come
Over at the Huffington Post, the head of Brady Campaign is rejoicing in a survey that finds a whole 30% thought that stricter gun laws (the term being left undefined) might have helped a lot at Va Tech, and that on the question of whether allowing lawful carrying of guns on campus would help or hurt, 23% thought it would help and 26% thought it would hurt.
To think that today, their side of the movement has to regard those figures as good news.
The survey is here, in pdf... gun questions are after #60. And that was about the closest thing to good news for Brady.
The survey is of 17-29 year olds (with some questions matched with recent data for all adults), so you'd expect this to be favorable to Brady's cause. (Asked which primary election they'd vote in, Demos outnumbered Repubs almost 2-1). And many questions are "stacked" ("How big of a problem is..." starts you thinking that this is a problem). But...
How big of a problem are guns in schools? Choices are not serious or serious. Serious stacking here, but 70% said not serious.
Would stricter gun control have helped at Va Tech? 42% said no effect, 30% "a little."
And going back to questions No. 1 and No. 6, asked (without prompting) to say what was the most serious question facing people of your generation, and the country ... crime got one response and gun control got zero.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
FLA: CCW holder stops robbery
Two robbers stick up a Subway sandwich store, begin to force employees into the back room for possibly lethal purposes. But a customer has a CCW permit and a gun, and the score ends 2-0 for the defender.
UPDATE: the Sun-Sentinel has more details. The defender was a 71 year old Marine.
"They just happened to pick on the wrong guy at the wrong time," said Wesley White of Yulee in north Florida. White said he's known Lovell for 19 years.
Lovell is a former Marine who was a member of the helicopter detail that transported Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, White said. He also was a former Pan Am and Delta airline pilot who worked out regularly and was in good condition, White said.
"He's also one heck of a shot," White, 50, said."
The comments to the story number over a thousand, and are cheering for him. I liked "Subway now offers 7 six inch sandwhiches that have les than 6 grams of fat (as long as you don't put any condiments containing fat into them). And for a limited time, cap a thug, get a free value meal upgrade."
Hat tip to Eric Schultz...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Philadelphia area legislators threaten to hold up state budget
They threaten to hold up the state budget unless gun control measures "get a hearing". (From the article, it sounds as if they have gotten hearings, and committee votes, and lost).
A Double barrelled bolt action rifle?
Video here. I guess it's for hunters of dangerous game who (1) like the reliability of a double, but (2) wish it had the 3+ firepower of a bolt. Or else it's just German gun designers who like things REALLY complicated.
Hat tip to David McCleary...
Permalink · shooting · Comments (4)
How things have changed...
When I started studying this issue in the 1970s, the big pushes were for, oh, national registration of all firearms, national permit systems for purchasing and carrying handguns, bans on civilian ownership of short-barreled handguns, and I forget what else. (Those were just the major issues: on the side bills were introduced to ban civilian use of soft-point projectiles in handguns, ban telescopic sights for rifles -- too useful for snipers, etc., etc.). Understand that in 1968, some antigun groups (in particular the predecessor of Brady Campaign) had come out AGAINST national registration, because they thought they could get more than that and were worried that Congress might pass registration, escape the media heat, and stop there.
Today, Brady Campaign issues a press release announcing its hopes for success, entitled "Connecticut, Many Other States Strengthening Gun Laws."
The specifics: one state passed a law to require reporting of stolen guns and another will give more mental health records to the NICS system.
Two more (Mass. & NJ, what a surprise!) are at least thinking about one gun a month.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
Defender acquitted in FLA case
I'd posted earlier on a Florida case where a fellow decided to attack a guy walking his dog, got two other folks (one a gang leader) to help him pulverize the person ... and they found to their dismay that the person was armed and able to shoot.
He's been found not guilty. In the meantime, tho, he sat in jail for eight months, his house has been burned down and his dogs been euthanized (I assume they were picked up when he was). The prosecutor's comments leave me wondering why he went ahead with the case (and note that a baseball bat was found near one of the dead thugs -- they obviously would have demolished the guy had he not been able to shoot):
"Williams, who argued that only Borden's first five shots could be construed as self-defense, said it was difficult to overcome the evidence that even the surviving victim, Juan Mendez, conceded the men planned to beat Borden.
Williams said he was upfront with the jury about the reputations of the men involved as well as their plans to hurt Borden because he wanted a fair trial.
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough.""
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (16)
Another anti-Michael Moore documentary
"Shooting Michael Moore". As in filming, I mean.
At last there is a media rival....
At last there is a rival to the media's constant descriptions of denials of certiorari as "upholding" the decision below. I've seen this several times in the last few months:
"...and other supporters say they will get the 60 votes needed on Tuesday to resume debate in the 100-member Senate."
Note to reporters supposedly covering Capitol Hill: a cloture vote CUTS OFF debate. What do you think they are doing right now, if not debating?
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
British victimization studies understate crime rates
It turns out the British crime victimization survey, the British Crime Survey, has since its inception had an artificial cap: no one may report having been a victim of more than five crimes in a year. Victimization No. 6 and beyond are simply discarded.
One might think that'd not have a big influence -- but a study by Professor Graham Farrell of Loughborough University finds that it means the real violent crime rate is 82% higher than what is being reported -- 4.4 million incidents per year rather than 2.4. That comes just from adding back in people who are being victimized 5+ times a year!
"In particular, the system means that the most vulnerable people in society may not be getting the police protection they require from repeat offenders, the report said."
[Hat tip to Dan Gifford]
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
Supreme Court rules in Wisconsin Rt to Life
Here's the ruling. On a quick read of the syllabus:
Core issue: McCain-Feingold forbid a corporation to spend money for airtime ads that mention a candidate's (literally, make any mention of it) within certain time periods before elections. The Court earlier upheld these limits, as a generality, in the McConnell decision (a 5-4).
Here a nonprofit advocacy group desire to buy airtime, and mention candidates who happened to be incumbents, urging people to call them and ask them to vote to confirm certain judges. The ads had no "express advocacy" of an election type, never said vote for or against the legislator or anything close.
The Court rules that forbidding this is a first amendment violation, but splits pretty widely:
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito don't see a need to question McConnell just now, but do see that the law as applied here is unconstitutional. It burdens political speech, is subject to strict scrutiny. Ads may be reasonably interpreted as something other than election advocacy (note that narrows such advocacy to situations where there seems no other explanation). Statute in this context fails strict scrutiny. Alito's concurrence adds that if it is later shown that the statute chills political speech despite this interpretation, it may be necessary to revisit McConnell and decide whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face.
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, concur on a broader basis: they'd overrule McConnell.
Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer dissent, and would uphold the ban as applied to this ad. They argue that the ads here are indistinguishable from at least one ad involved in McConnell, and say the lead opinion (Roberts + Alito) really does overrule that cast.
Update: I agree with SCOTUSBlog's take on the issue. (1) the Chief Justice and Justice Alito are suggesting that in a later case they will likely join with the concurrences and overrule McConnell, holding the relevant parts of McCain-Feinstein unconstitutional on their face; (2) in the meantime, the statute will only constitutionally apply to advocacy unless it is pretty obviously meant only as "vote for or against this candidate." Since the core idea of the statute was to outlaw (unconstitutionally, in my view) messages that didn't say vote for or against a person (on the argument it was easy to cloak that message with "Sen. Smith is going to gut Social Security, demand that he stop") this means that the core of McCain-Feinstein is largely removed, even if it may take some years before the statute itself is struck down. (3) This approach avoids the criticism that would come from the Court ruling 5-4 in McConnell, having a couple of seats change, and then ruling 5-4 to overrule McConnell.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (5)
Update on apartment co. that fired a manager for defending a woman
The company is flailing around trying to defend itself -- uh, his rent check bounced, uh, an unnamed source said his first aid did harm, and Bitter goes to town on their claims. As she notes, you couldn't buy this much bad publicity. I just ran a Google on the manager's name, and it turned up 27,000 hits.
Even the Washington Post blog is taking his side, followed by comments like "The Village Green Company is a bunch of scumbags. They would sell their own children to turn a profit. I rented from them and their policy makes me want to puke" and "I live at the Oaks at Mill Creek and there is no one here who feels safer with Colin gone. Managment made a big mistake and its not the first time. If I could move I would but I cant break my lease but I am very very tempted." As Bitter says, you couldn't buy this much bad publicity if you wanted to.
Oh--here's a page where you can send the apartment company an email.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Dialing 911....
And I imagine it's more prompt, here in Tucson than in some places.
"Most of the time police [i.e., 911 operators] answer promptly — in 12 seconds on average.
But on June 7 a caller waited 5 1/2 minutes, computer records show. On April 24, police took six minutes and 34 seconds to answer the phone. And the maximum answer delay was seven minutes and 12 seconds on March 20."
Hat tip to Bernie Oliver.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Australian newspaper
This is priceless:
"The problem remains that the law can never be restrictive enough to prevent dangerous weapons falling into the hands of dangerous people.
The question is whether the law needs to be toughened even more to include a wider ban on pistols as well as a handgun buyback.
The trouble is, criminals do not comply with buybacks."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)
Great article on US v. Miller
Here, "The Peculiar Story of US v. Miller. I think it totally "writes out" the case. The author's research is incredible, tracing Miller's story in detail, and concluding that the district judge meant to set up a Supreme Court case that would get himself reversed (his opinion struck down the NFA, but in reality he was a supporter of federal gun laws who had laughed off the Second Amendment). He explains one reason Miller is so brief and terse: its author, McReynolds, wrote very short opinions. And why there was no input from the defense: Miller's attorney was involved in a very hot political fight at the time.
The conclusion is that Miller is what I've termed a hybrid rights case: the right to arms is an individual right, but only covers military-style arms. That sort of ruling became popular in the mid 1800s, when the issues were largely arms laws regulating daggers, brass knuckles, etc.
Hat tip to Joe Olson.
Permalink · US v. Miller ~ · US v. Miller · Comments (2)
VERY interesting book on combat
By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, covering both police and military combat. Available here.
I've read it twice, and it is excellent. Most people don't understand that fear and combat have been the subject of much serious study. The earlier work was probably du Pict, who was killed in the Franco-Prussian War, and who based his studies on interviews of Napoleon I's veterans. Then there was Lord Moran's "On Fear," based on his observations as a battlefield doctor in WWI. S. L. A. Marshall's study of WWII and Korean firefights (where he found interestingly that only 15% of men fired if they saw the enemy, and which led to revisions in training away from bullseye targets, to get soldiers conditioned to fire at enemy rather than round bulls). Then there are quite a few more recent studies.
This work essentially integrates all that data, and adds quite a few original insights, and then lays out practical principles of training. I can't do it justice in a blog post, but will try in extended remarks below.
Continue reading "VERY interesting book on combat"
Permalink · shooting · Comments (9)
Arizona and Utah CCW training
Here's a website for a group that offers CCW classes both for AZ and for UT. (The significance of the latter is that Utah's permits are easier to get and more widely honored, and you don't have to reside in Utah... except that if you're an Arizonan, the state won't let you carry in-state based on one).
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (2)
Marion Barry walks again
A federal magistrate rules against revoking his probation for failure to file taxes while on probation for not filing taxes.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
Test for "no retreat" laws
The article describes it as a test of "Castle Doctrine," but it's actually of the "no retreat" law.
What is a bit annoying is that I've seen plenty of cases on these facts (attacker, with evidence of aggressive intent, defender testifying that he fired because the car was coming at him. All involved law enforcement, and no charges were brought. Here, the guy was out walking a dog, the survivor agrees that they were coming back to get the defender, and had rounded up another guy, a gang leader, to help in the work. Whether the defenders were LEOs or civilians, I think a murder charge is outa line. Of course, as with any trial, you have to wait for the evidence to come out.
An item prob. not to be reported in the MSM
From an email from Don Kates:
I am in receipt of the following:
11 year-old girl shoots two home intruders
5-2-07 -- Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza,
26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home-alone eleven
year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story
home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in
Montana, and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was
nine. Patricia was in her upstairs bedroom when the two men broke
through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's
room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be
the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the girl's
knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to
the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to
death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen
.45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The
victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab
wounds to the chest.
Patricia staved off a robbery and potential rape because her
parents taught her how to use a gun. Her parents just didn't hide a gun
in the house and not educate her on the power that a firearm provides.
Ignorance can be deadly, but fortunately for this Montana family,
knowledge was power.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Celebrity status and protection in Great Britain
The Daily Mail reports that when heiress Jemima Khan had a cat go missing, two Scotland Yard detectives took on the search.
"But it emerged that for 33-year-old Miss Khan's non-celebrity neighbours, it was a different story when they asked the police for help.
When thugs, thieves, vandals and even a gunman terrorised them, the incidents aroused little interest from the local constabulary."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
Proposals to allow CCW on several campuses
Story at College Times.
AZ home invasion, with usual outcome
Article in Tucson's morning paper: "HOME INVASION NETS WOMAN 60 DAYS PLUS 3 YEARS OF PROBATION."
Farther down in the article, a note that four perps kicked in a door at 4 AM and "One of the suspects, Johnny Hunter, was shot after hitting the victim in the face..."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
Bad sign for John McCain
A fellow staked out about 20 "elect McCain" type URLs, is selling them on Ebay, with opening big of $150 for the lot, and is unable to get a single bid.
Via The Kausfiles.
Some interesting polls in early primary states suggest Ebay's market reflects political reality. [Via Instapundit].
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Senior citizens taking out CCW permits
Story here.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (2)
Write your legislator, get a visit from the police
Illinois State Rifle Association is investigating. Apparently, people who phoned or faxed State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) on gun bills have been getting interviewed by the state police.
Very disgusting
An apartment complex manager hears a woman screaming, takes a shotgun, saves her life, and gets fired.
" One policy prohibits any type of weapons being used in the workplace. The complaint cited him for "gross misconduct."
"Colin demonstrated extremely poor judgment in responding to this situation," the complaint said. "Colin's failure to immediately report this incident ... could have serious ramifications to the property, its associates and residents.""
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Finding the "Lost Colony"
Researchers propose to use DNA testing to find find descendants of the Lost Colony at Roanoke.
I wonder why the story omits where you find likely descendants. Among the local Indian tribes, of course. As I recall there is one tribe which has members with blonde hair, beards, and English names that go back centuries. When the supply ships returned, they found "Croatan" carved on the log wall. The arrangement had been that if the colonists relocated, they would carve their destination there, and put a cross above it if they relocated under compulsion. There was no cross, and the Croatans were a tribe to the north. The message was simple: they'd voluntarily gone with the Croatans. No one really made a search for the colonists until decades later, by which point the tribe had moved inland. I'm banking they starved out, the Croatans took them in, and they intermarried and became tribal members. More data.
Courtroom fallout from US Atty firings
Story here.
[Hat tip to David McCleary]
Permalink · Politics · Comments (1)
Slow blogging
I'm in Roanoke VA, at the Outdoor Writers' conference, promoting my documentary
Mexico complains
The government of Mexico is complaining that drug cartels (which for all practical purposes own the government of Mexico) are buying guns in the US.
"Although firearms can be bought on the black market in Mexico, it is very difficult to purchase them legally." Natch. The accustomed mordida, tip, for not having your car inspected was, last time I went across, $10. Slip that to the border inspector and it doesn't matter what is in the trunk of your car -- a dozen guns, a few bodies, a nuke -- you're in without inspection.
[Update: it was in the early 90s]
Internal FBI audit on data collection
Story here. The audit finds over a thousand violations of the rules during collection of data on telephone calls and internet access. The curious thing is that all but a few dozen apparently involved (1) the companies providing data that FBI had not requested and (2) the agency keeping it -- the violation being in keeping it, not in asking for it.
Pizza Hut manager defends self, gets fired
Fox News has the story. He held a CCW license, BTW.
They had a robbery like that here -- none of the employees were armed, one of the robbers thought they'd recognized him, so they murdered them all.
[Hat tip to Budd Schroeder]
Madison's notes on the Bill of Rts
I found a good copy of James Madison's notes, for his speech introducing the Bill of Rights in the First House, and added (since the ink is faded) a typed version of the critical notes on the left.
The most important section involves Madison's critique of the English Declaration of Rights of 1688/89. He notes it is an act of Parliament (and thus can be repealed), does not protect freedom of press, conscience and other rights, and "arms to protestts" -- it said the subjects "who are Protestant" may have arms for their defense. View image
Interesting discovery re: Gutenberg
Based on computer analysis of his first printed books, this study argues that, while he invented moveable type (in the West), he didn't make the full breakthrough to using copper moulds to easily create the lead type. Rather, each lead character had to be hand-crafted in plaster before being cast. Since you needed a fair number of them, and they wore down in use, Gutenberg's process was far more efficient than hand-copying, but still rather expensive and slow.
The authors suggest that the use of metal molds actually was invented by another printer, in Italy, about 20 years later. You cut an iron die of the letter, hammered it into copper, and used the copper to cast the lead character. Now you could get characters as fast as you could pour lead, and one shop could furnish type for many presses.
Non-firearm assault in Australia
This takes the record, I think.
[Hat tip to Joe Olson]
Debate at the Brookings Institution
Story here.
Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, agreed that the Second Amendment "is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," and suggested that those who dislike that ought to try to amend it.
And Prof. Randy Barnett answered that that might encourage people who question the other provisions in the Bill of Rights to take the same approach to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search, and that they could as easily argue "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder." That ties in with what he said in my documentary: those who disparage the Second Amendment should remember that the same methodology can be used to disparage the rest of the Bill of Rights: by agreeing to protect the Second, even if you don't like it, you increase the chances the parts of the Bill of Rights you do like will also be secured.
Thought for the day
"Among the evils then of our situation may well be ranked the multiplicity of laws from which no State is exempt. As far as laws are necessary, to mark with precision the duties of those who are to obey them, and to take from those who are to administer them a discretion, which might be abused, their number is the price of liberty. As far as the laws exceed this limit, they are a nusance: a nusance of the most pestilent kind. Try the Codes of the several States by this test, and what a luxuriancy of legislation do they present. The short period of independency has filled as many pages as the century which preceded it. Every year, almost every session, adds a new volume. This may be the effect in part, but it can only be in part, of the situation in which the revolution has placed us. A review of the several codes will shew that every necessary and useful part of the least voluminous of them might be compressed into one tenth of the compass, and at the same time be rendered tenfold as perspicuous."
NICS improvement compromise
Word is the bill will be introduced as HR 2640. It's not online at Thomas yet, but I managed to get hold of the relevant language. Most of the bill is 20+ pages of verbiage about grants to states to improve input of mental health records. For me, the critical language is a couple of sections that essentially let a person who was committed at some point in their lives escape the lifetime bar that now exists. The wording is a trifle awkward at times, but as I read it, if the court that committed them makes a finding that they are not a danger any more, or the state creates an entity that can make a similar finding, they're not a prohibited person and their name comes off the NICS list. The relevant text is in extended remarks below.
[Update in light of comments: I can't find anything in it about relief from disabilities for minor infractions. Those would be handled under state law now, and I don't see the bill as changing it. But I do note that its definitions of the mental situation clarify that a vet who got a pension based on mental disability is not a prohibited person. I recall the VA turned over tens of thousands of records of that, and I suppose there was some controversy over whether that qualified as a disabling factor to own a gun.]
Continue reading "NICS improvement compromise"
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (9)
Armed citizen patrols in New Haven CN
Story here. Instapundit's comment: "a pack, not a herd."
Swiss shooting competition
150,000 competitors. That's serious!
Permalink · shooting · Comments (0)
Proposal to add terrorist watch list to prohibited person category
An interesting discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy about Walter Murphy, retired Colonel of Marines, and Professor Emitus at Princeton, who finds himself apparently on the "watch list."
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (2)
Bitter's on a roll!
Bitter has a series of posts that chronicle the financial woes of the Brady Campaign. As in income drop of nearly a third in two years, operating on a loss of over $300,000 the first year, fundraising costs going up from 24% to 32% of budget.
And a good discussion of the NICS bill that's moving thru Congress. I haven't seen the wording and can't vouch for the content, but if it gives mental-committment prohibited persons the ability to regain firearms rights, it will be a big step forward. I know two persons, upstanding types, who right now are barred for life because years ago they had a mental committment.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
West Virginia CCW reciprocity
The WV Atty General has the announcement.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (2)
Altercation between CCW holder and undercover officer
Story here. The matter is just starting out, but at this point it does sound uncommonly as if the CCW holder was acting in self-defense.
In that situation I'd probably stomp on the brakes, if only because when you try to drive and defend yourself at the same time, you're apt to do both rather poorly.
[Hat tip to reader Eric Anondson]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Instapundit on Bill Richardson
Instapundit suggests there are several reasons to like Bill Richardson.
UPDATE: Here's a nice piece on him in the LA Times.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (3)
Indicted Rep. Wm Jefferson required to give up guns
Newsbusters has the story. And Here's his recent voting record on the issue.
Via Instapundit.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
Campus police head resigns over unarmed officers
The police chief of the City College of San Francisco just resigned because the College refuses to allow his officers to be armed.
"The carnage at Virginia Tech convinced Chief Koehler even more that his officers need to be armed. But he was fighting a 70-year-old college policy prohibiting its officers from carrying guns.
....
Peter Goldstein, CCSF Vice Chancellor: "The police force does not carry weapons... I guess he felt that ultimately didn't fit in with his vision of where the department should be.""
[Hat tip to Pete Buxton, who got it from one of the students]
An interesting Kozinski opinion
Here, in pdf.
Basically, police had probable cause to search a car, which was being used for drug transport. But they didn't want to tip off the owner just yet. So one officer faked being a drunk driver and bumped his car. Other officers "arrested" him. The driver and girlfriend were asked to come to a squad car to be interviewed, and during that another officer played car thief and "stole" their car. Police went in supposed pursuit, returned to say he'd gotten away. Police then got a warrant, searched it, and found narcotics.
The opinion determines this was a reasonable, if quite novel search. Police could have seized the car without a warrant -- it's a car, and they had probable cause. They carefully bumped his car in the faked accident. They returned all the property they could (claiming the thief had thrown it out the window during the pursuit -- you wonder that the suspect didn't think that a bit strange, was the driver thinking that he'd go faster if he lightened the car by a purse?).
[via the Volokh Conspiracy]
Permalink · General con law · Comments (7)
Guns on campus
Alpheca posts on a debate between two LEOs on the issue. One supports allowing CCW permitees to carry on campus, the other argues police responding to a shooting will be unable to identify who is the murderer and who is the legitimate defender.
Some of the comments are hilarious. E.g.,
"Hint: Bad guys with guns will shoot at the police. Good guys with guns will not.
Hope this helps."
Red's Trading Post blog
Red's Trading Post, the Idaho FFL subject to a license revocation proceeding, now has a blog.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (0)
Friends of Fred Thompson
I just added a sidebar on the left, for donations to Fred Thompson. You can get the html for your own sidebar at Friends of Fred Thompson.
[I don't like that he voted for McCain-Feingold, but I think he's strong on just about everything else I value.)
BTW, if anyone wants to stick their own favorite candidate's websites in the comments, feel free. I think I set the spam block to moderate anything with more than 2 htmls, to keep out the &%$#^ spambots, so you might want to stick to one for sure or maybe two. If they don't appear promptly, it just means they were held for my clearance. Spambots will come up and post 5-10-20 webpages, for everything under the sun.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (7)
Ooops....
Anapolis police raid home, kick in door, throw in flash-bangs, kick owner in the groin...
And then discover they raided the wrong house.
Priest who called for "snuffing out" dealer equivocal now
The Chicago Tribune blog has the story. Apparently the Cardinal and he had a talk. Now he says he meant it more like "sniff out," and claims he didn't know that "snuff out" had homicidal implications. Hmmm... "Secondly, John Riggio. He’s the owner of Chucks. John Riggio R-I-G-G-I-O. We’re gonna find you and snuff you out. You can’t keep hiding ‘cause you’re afraid." "Whatever it takes to shut this gun store down. And shut down this legislation. We’re gonna snuff out John Riggio. We’re gonna snuff out legislators against our gun laws. And we’re coming for you because we’re not going to sit idly."
The mystery to me is the story's mention of his foster son. Guess he could be widowed.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Interesting events in VA
Million Moms March schedules a public meeting in a public building. Some pro-gunners show up (the story notes they are Virginia Citizens Defense League members, but they showed up on their own initative) show up, want to videotape the event, decline to sign an agreement it would be for public consumption only. It's a public gathering in a public building, why shouldn't it be public?
Million Moms cancels the event. The Fairfax County TImes carries the story.
Microsoft anti-hunting?
Story here. One more reason to go Mac!
[Yup, the fact is that while your local Humane Societies operate pet shelters, Humane Society of the US is essentially a lobbying group, and to the best of my knowledge, operates none. And it gets all the money -- probably due in good part because people think it's the national association of humane societies.]
Some rather doubtful criminal charges
Dave Kopel on Bill O'Reilly
Wasn't able to watch it, but apparently O'Reilly made the mistake of taking on a trial lawyer, lost it, and went into ranting. Cliff Kincaid reports at Accuracy in Media.
Via Instapundit
Don't know which line I like better...
One hero's wife, on why she continued reading a book: "I figured he would go up there and step on somebody’s neck, and that would be the end of it. I knew how that situation would end. I didn’t know how the book would end.”
The other heroic one, asked by the first if he was up to the fight: ‘Retired captain. USMC.’
The Anchoress has a roundup.
The Laconic style, beloved of the Spartans: never waste a word.
Dave Kopel on O'Reilly tonight
Just got word Dave will be on O'Reilly tonight (time given as 6 PM MDT, which would mean 8 PM east coast). It's not on firearms law, but on a matter at Boulder High School where Dave has been extremely critical of O'Reilly.
Fred Thompson website
I've established a rough website for Sportsmen for Fred Thompson. There is no organization by that name yet, but I'm sure there will be one, and then I'll turn it over to them. I'd appreciate any links to the page, as I'd like it to have a decent Google rating by he time he declares and such a group is set up.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (5)
Supreme Court on death-qualified jurors
The Supreme Court today came down with Uttech v. Brown. The issue was ultimately whether a trial court properly removed a juror in a death-penalty case where there seemed to be some doubt about whether he could vote for the death penalty. (I say seemed to be some doubt because there was a lot of ambiguity: he said he supported the death penalty, and could impose it, esp. if a defendant might get outand but added that he'd just learned that if not sentenced to death the defendant would get life without parole, and that seemed to incline him against it.)
I can see the Court's emphasis that it must depend upon the trial court's assessment of the juror's demeanor. But I can't quite understand why death-qualified juries are still in use. The original rational was that the juror's objection to the death penalty would impermissibly contaminate their decision on guilt -- they'd be reluctant to convict, knowing that the judge might impose the death penalty. But today the jury votes on both issues, so there would be no likely contamination. In this context, holding that the State has a right, not only to jurors who can vote to convict, but who can impose the death penalty, means that a measurable part of the population is excluded from the jury. The result here also indicates that even a juror who supports the death penalty can be excluded, if his support is vague or has limits.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (3)
New book by John Lott
Just in the mail: "Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't." It is quite interesting and a good read, in part an answer to an earlier book "Freakonomics." These two books seem intended to remove economic's popular reputation as "the dismal science," by showing how statistical work can be applied to matters of popular interest. The key to that is often having the imagination to figure out the beginning data, where do you start comparisons?
A few of the most interest points (to me, anyway):
Interest groups contribute to campaigns of politicians who favor them. Does that prove politicians favor them because of their contributions, or rather that they contribute to politicians who favor them anyway? Which is cause and which effect?
Lott takes the voting records of 700+ House members, and asks what happened after they announced they were retiring? Contributions of course fell off by 85% -- they're not going to campaign again. But their voting record stayed the same. Even with no need for campaign funds or other support, they voted the same. The contributions didn't create their positions; their positions lead to contributions, is to say the call for "campaign reform" is badly undercut.
Campaign finance reform: the main effect is to level the playing field. Except that the playing field is already heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent. So the re-election rate goes upward wherever these measures are adopted.
A bit of history: private radio stations initially seemed doomed to failure, since nobody could figure out to make it pay. How can you charge for subscriptions, when anyone can listen in? For a time it looked as if government radio was the only possibility. Then AT&T discovered they could sell ads, and make it pay without dues or taxes.
Crime rates: a mystery to many was why rates began rapidly falling in the early 90s. Freakonomics attributed it to abortion -- potential criminals were being terminated early and the population of them was smaller. Freedomomics argues this was a bad analysis of the data, and denies the conclusion. It argues that increasing the number of executions depressed homicides, for one thing. (It points out that the odds of a policeman being murdered is less than the odds of a killer being executed, yet that is enough to influence officer decision -- to wear body armor, be cautious, etc. -- why doubt that the odds of execution influences killers?) Another factor was increased police on duty. Plus right to carry laws, and here Lott answers Freaknomomic's attack on his conclusion that right to carry reduces crime rates. (He also cites data by other economists suggesting that when right to carry is enacted, and crime rates drop, they often go up in adjacent counties in nearby states that didn't enact it, suggesting that the criminals moved, or relocated their crimes).
He has an interesting chart on studies of right to carry and its effects. Basically, 15 studies conclude right to carry reduces violent crime. 10 studies conclude it had no discernable effect. Zero studies conclude it increased violence.
All in all, a very great read, and demonstration of how statistical work can illuminate matters of great policy concern to us all. Oh, and here's the Amazon link to buy (I suspect it'd be useful if its Amazon ranking shot up quickly -- best-seller data isn't available for a while, and Amazon ranking is often used as a short term substitute):
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (3)
Reports on possible SCOTUS replacements
Here's the story, on ABC News. No idea how reliable the story is -- it could be no more than rehashing old news.
I do wish someone would look outside the ranks, for really first-rate constitutional law folks, regardless of liberal vs. conservative standards. William van Alstyne, Akhil Amar, Glenn Reynolds, Gene Volokh, Randy Barnett, etc.. First rate people who have proven themselves in the field of con law.
[Update: title corrected. It was originally "POTUS replacements."]
Chaska, Minn. Chief of Police signs on with Mayors
Police Chief Scott Knight, of Chaska Minn., has signed on to do a TV commercial for Bloomberg's Mayors group.
The story also notes that FOP opposes the Bloomberg position, and that two stations refused to run the ad.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
NY Times on Justice Thomas
Not to say it's a tiny bit slanted, but the title tells you all you need to know: "The Next Big Thing in Law? The Harsh Jurisprudence of Justice Thomas".
Although Thomas himself has explained his silence in oral arguments (he grew up speaking Gullah, and the transition made him shy about speaking) the article says that people speculate that it's because "he is afraid that if he speaks he will reveal his ignorance about the case; he is so ideologically driven that he invariably comes with his mind made up; or he has contempt for the process."
He "regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering." "He appears poised in the next few weeks to achieve his longstanding goal: dismantling the integrationist vision of his predecessor Thurgood Marshall."
He started out rather liberal, but then sold out: "But as he accepted jobs from Republicans eager to hire a conservative black lawyer, he shifted rightward." He is always "quick to reach a harsh result."
[via Prof. Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy]
Permalink · media · Comments (4)
This is SERIOUS professionalism
A guy is injured, and an ER crew busts their chops to save his life. Without batting an eye at the fact that they are all African-American, and he is ....
Take the test
Who said it, Al Gore, or the Unabomber?
[Via the Volokh Conspiracy]
Update: one of the comments suggests you might take a similar test: Porn Star, or My Little Pony. The link couldn't posted since "porn" is blocked due to the thousands of spam comments using that term. (I even get spam for fork lift buying sites).
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
NY Times on "assault rifles"
Actually, a pretty balanced piece.
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
Yet another "this is pitiful" moment
A few years back, Los Angeles gave 1.5 million in grants to a group known as "No Guns."
ATF just arrested its founder for sale of a machine gun, two silencers, and other toys.
Note to LA government: be cautious about trusting a million bucks to a guy who goes by "Big Weasel."
UPDATE: LA Weekly has more detail. He already had one gun charge against him, his son, "Little Weasel," had been indicted for robbery, and his daughter's boyfriend, present in the house when he was arrested, fled but was caught and is charged with felon-in-possession. Oh, and he and relatives were making $200,000 a year each off Los Angeles.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (8)
Justice Inspector General on Task Forces
Justice OIG has just released a lengthy analysis of "Task Forces" in federal law enforcement. BIG pdf file here.
A quick read indicates that some such units cooperated well, but many did not. The report calls for increased coordination to avoid overlapping investigations, decreased rivalry (fat chance: as the report notes, it found many cases where two different task forces each reported the same arrest as having been made by them without help) and "deconfliction," coordinating efforts to avoid conflict.
Lack of the last was illustrated by several gun cases where FBI made an illegal gun sale and busted the buyer, only to find he was an ATF agent, who was planning on busting them, or vice versa.
Interestingly, when they assigned a numerical score to how well each task force was internally coordinated, ATF got the highest scores, beating FBI, Marshals' Service, DEA, etc.
Pro-gun attorneys
David McCleary, of Michigan, just created a website for his practice.
While I was at it, I thought I'd list some other pro-gun and second amendment attorneys with websites, and who I know have an active practice.
Steve Halbrook, of Virginia.
Chuck Michel of California.
Richard Gardiner is based in VA.
And of course Alan Gura, who with Bob Levy won Parker v. DC, and is handling the appeal.
Jim Jeffreys of NC was a wizard at Title II matters, but I think he's retired. Don Kates is still active, but has no website.
David Goldman, of Jacksonvillle, FL, who emphasizes NFA firearms and has a blog on their legal issues.
Must be others, but they don't readily come to mind. Feel free to add more!