« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 2007
British seek international replica gun controls
Story here.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (7)
ATF from the inside
I've received the attached pdf file (small, 134K) from someone in the know. It details ATF agents' complaints regarding how managers are conducting themselves. Here are a few snippets:
" Field agents have attempted to challenge the un-ethical, and illegal actions of field managers through various means in recent years only to meet with retaliation so destructive it almost inevitably results in the challenges or allegations being withdrawn."
" Fear of ATF leadership has replaced transparency. Lack of trust and the absence of good faith in trying to resolve these issues have caused a growing number of Agents to rely upon legal means to invoke the protections and seek redress. Record numbers of EEOC, OIG, OSC, whistleblower and internal grievances face the new management team. Requests for congressional intervention by Agents across the country..."
"The EEOC complaints over the last 2 years number in the hundreds. The overwhelming percentage of which contain allegations of retaliation. "
" First impressions in the field are that Acting Director Michael Sullivan is a competent and professional leader who possesses the skill to lead the Bureau of ATF&E. However, he continues to act on filtered information from those who have created these problems. These problems and those responsible must be dealt with before the Bureau can restore trust in it management team.
With the appointment of Deputy Director Ronnie Carter and Assistant Director Billy Hoover, the signal was clear. The intent is/was to restore ethical and professional leadership to the Bureau.
Perhaps the problems are too significant to place on the shoulders of 3 men, or maybe the Bureau is beyond repair. Either way, the complaints continue as does the retaliation, abuse of authority and the climbing number of EEOC, OSC, OIG and internal grievance complaints."
Having worked in the bureaucracy, I can see the comment about the incoming director. The guy on top may be good, but he knows only what his assistant directors tell him, and they know only what the guys below them tell them, etc., etc. At each stage of this, information is filtered to remove bad news, protect your unit, protect your buddies, etc.. If you send up info that makes your unit look bad -- that's gonna hurt you when your superior does your yearly evaluation, right? By the end of the filtration, the guy in charge hears nothing but "Everything is being run perfectly, and there are no problems, and anyone who managed to get your ear about problems is a lying sack of offal." Then of course they hunt down the guy who talked. He's not a team player. He makes his bosses look bad. Jack him around, transfer him around, seek out excuses to give him a bad evaluation, maybe see if you can tag him with misconduct (hmmm... did he use his official car for a grocery run?).
The greatest fear of mid-level is that the boss may get unfiltered information. At Interior I was a simple staffer. Even my secretary didn't work for me -- she reported, like me, to my boss. Yet one day we received written orders that if the Secretary of Interior called us to ask for data on a legal case, we were to refuse to talk to him and tell him to go thru channels. (The order was given, and stuck, because our ultimate boss had in fact better White House connection than the Secretary. Our ultimate boss was a good guy, not a bureaucrat, so I'd wager the mid-level folks had gone to him with horror stories about the Sec. becoming a loose cannon if he got real data, and sold him on the idea).
[UPDATE in light of comment: I did start under Watt, in '82, but the Secretary under which this happened was Manny Lujan. I forget the Solicitor's name, but he was a good one, in this case I'd assume spun by mid-level management. The full story: the bean-counters, the admin people, came up with the idea of a litigation book, in which each case in which we were involved would have one page, no more and no less. The thought we were involved in a few hundred cases. It turned out to be many thousands. Sent by, in those days, a 1200 baud modem. The first try locked up the mainframe for a solid day. Afterwards, each office had to send them in by floppy, sent overnight. Then someone in HQ had to review them lest the horrific sin, a typo, be found. But our corrections didn't go back to the author, so next month would have the same typos...
Anyway, at the bottom of each page was " For further information contact: John Smith, 208-0124." A bureaucrat knew that mean John Smith was handling the matter, kindly do not think you can contact him, you go thru channels. Lujan, who was a nice guy, didn't understand that, actually read the briefing books -- by now a set of about six big three-ring binders -- and calling people. Hence all the uproar. He was getting raw data, from someone who actually knew what was going on!
In those days, we called ourselves OPs, Omnipotent Peons.]
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (18)
Definition of "committed"
Clayton Cramer has an interesting posting relating to an article in Journ. of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law. The gist of it is that the cases are clear that an involuntary committment can create prohibited status under GCA 68, they're all over the place beyond that point. Some say that a temporary emergency committment that doesn't lead to a formal committment proceeding is no bar to gun ownership. Others say that a procedure where the committment order is issued by two physicians, without judicial findings, is enough.
Going to the article he cites, indeed it is a mess, beyond the principle that if a committment is for observation, without subsequent finding that the person is indeed insane, he's probably in the clear.
At the level of state law, it's even worse. In four states, voluntary committment, or diagnosis without committment, can be a bar. In California, just being given a 72 hour committment for observation is a bar, altho it ends after five years. Four states have no bar based on psychiatric findings at all.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (5)
Glenn Reynolds' take on Parker
It's here, with link to a pdf download. The paper discusses the upcoming Term, with Parker beginning at p. 13. Gist: Supremes vote-counting is an operation in guesswork. Prof. Mark Tushnet thinks there aren't five votes for an individual right (the four liberals will go against, and Kennedy, who comes from a conservative standpoint not sympathetic to individual rights) will join them. But Prof. Larry Tribe (the archtypical liberal) thinks individual rights will win out. He cites some writers who believe (and I quite agree) that this would be THE case of the Term. The number of Americans who feel strongly about this issue probably outnumbers those who feel the same about, oh, Gitmo detainees or other "hot" Supremes issues by a thousand to one, perhaps ten thousand to one.
I don't consider the "liberal wing" as a lost cause, as Tushnet apparently does. The leading lights on the individual rights side are all quite liberal. Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, William van Alstyne. Don Kates and Joe Olson got their start as civil rights workers who took up arms to defend against attack. This issue resonates across political lines. Heck, I know a devout Marxist who is a lifer in the NRA, and his explanations make more sense than the conservative ones. I.e., how will the workers defend themselves without arms? Why do most gun control schemes have exceptions for corporations' hired guards?
In Volupate Mors comments, in a comment blocked by the spam filter for some reason:
Your Marxist friend is right. As you know, the NFA contains a provision that allows corporations and trusts to purchase NFA firearms without local law enforcement sign-off; individuals have to be approved by the local CLEO.
As you also know, only the military and law enforcement can presently purchase machine guns that were made after May 1986. Someone is floating a proposal to allow security companies, who conveniently have contracts with state or federal governments, to purchase newly made machine guns.
Finally, Orwell noted that the rifle hanging above the door of a worker's cottage was the last thing standing between freedom and tyranny. He was right.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
What Rudy's wife REALLY said during the NRA event
Now, THIS is funny.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Conflict in GA
A strange story. Gist of it appears to be that a 60 year old lady is informed a power line is being run across her property ( I assume the utility is condemning an easement, but story doesn't say), talks to surveyors, and winds up arrested and strip-searched. Then charges of disorderly conduct are dropped. Utility claims they had "subtle threats" from people in the area. Personally, my experience has been that anyone who is crass enough to make a threat is rarely subtle about it.
Stay of mandate denied in Parker
Chicago Handgun Rights picks up an interesting note on how the DC Circuit just denied the motion to lift the stay of mandate in Parker.
I wouldn't regard it as disappointing: a motion like this is really made to suggest that your opponents are fools, and to keep them off balance. If you win it, that's nice, too.
But the actual ruling is, to my eyes, extraordinary. Normally, a Court of Appeals does NOT want the Supremes to issue certiorari... why risk having your ruling overturned? But in this ruling we have things like:
"To be sure, as our opinion suggested, the Supreme Court may well disagree with Seegars, 396 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and conclude that all the plaintiffs have standing."
and
"In any event, the District’s petition for certiorari makes an alternative argument not presented in our court – that the District’s ban on handguns can be justified so long as rifles and shotguns can be utilized in the home for self protection. The Supreme Court, if it should reach that argument – and conclude it was constitutional to ban handguns in the home if long guns were permitted – would necessarily be obliged to consider the impact of Section 7-2507.02, since a disassembly or trigger lock requirement might render a shotgun or rifle virtually useless to face an unexpected threat."
and (fn. 3):
"The District of Columbia Council never contemplated the specific use of a rifle or shotgun in that situation. Had the Council contemplated such, it would, perforce, have had to consider the danger posed by a rifle’s range and a shotgun’s pellet spread, as well as the difficulty one would have handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces – particularly by smaller individuals. Appellees’ brief at 17 did suggest that any gun (including a pre-1976 legal handgun) might be used in self defense in a “true emergency,” otherwise described as “genuine imminent danger.” But the Code does not allow for such, nor did the District ever specify how one would define the circumstances under which one could assemble or unlock a rifle or shotgun to face a “true emergency” (professionals might well be amused at such a hypothetical). The truth is that neither the Code nor the District, in this litigation, ever suggested that a rifle or shotgun, as opposed to a handgun, could be legally employed in self defense."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (1)
Media discover loophole: gun laws don't cover muskets!
Story here:
"It's a replica of an antique firearm and federal and state gun laws do not apply to antique-type guns. It can be purchased without any background check."
....
""We're undermined by weak laws elsewhere and this simply must be changed," said Jackie Kuhls, executive director for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
A former agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms says for state and federal law not to consider this rifle a firearm is crazy.
"It is totally outrageous to have this type of firearm considered to be an illegal type of firearm, especially under federal and state law," said former ATF agent Domincik Polifrone."
Permalink · media · Comments (8)
A good day!
I just won a First Amendment case. Actually, it holds a portion of the Arizona Constitution unconstitutional under the 1st & 14th Amendments.
Arizona some years ago went to a "modified open" primary. In it, members of the three parties with regular ballot access (Demo, Repub and Libertarian) have to vote in their own parties' primaries. Independents and members of parties without ballot access (Greens, etc.) however can vote in any major party primary that they pick. The Libertarians objected: they didn't want non-Libs picking their candidates and party officers.
We won in district court. The 9th Circuit upheld it as to letting non-Libs vote for party officers, but reversed and remanded as to voting for candidates. We went back in with more extensive evidence, and now win on that, too. District Court holds that the statute has a major effect on voting rights, which triggers strict scrutiny. Also that the State's interests (which were largely "this encourages more people to vote") were not within the type of "regulatory" standards that the Court allows even under a laxer scrutiny.
UPDATE: a comment blocked by the spam filter for some reason:
Congrats on the win! The "We get to vote in your primary but you can't vote in ours" never seemed fair.
What is the practical effect of the ruling? I presume at the very least, only registered ALP members will get to vote in the ALP primary. Does it also apply to the Republi-'Crat primaries as well?
Answer: it only applies directly, in AZ, and the the ALP. The Repubs and Demos were comfortable with independents, etc. voting in their primaries since (1) they have a big enough registration base to where such votes probably won't change the results and (2) since their object is to win rather than have any ideological theme (I may be dating myself, but I can remember when Ted Kennedy and wild segregationists still considered themselves the same party), they welcome anything that has the chance of drawing more votes.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (4)
Councilman breaks CA gun laws, discusses it on radio
Update: Henry Bowman comments (and was blocked by the spam filter for some reason:
Ha ha ha! Perhaps Ken Murray should give John Rosenthal and Steve Bailey a ring. They could all meet somewhere, have triple dry half-caf extra-hot sugar-free vanilla soy lattes, and swap stories about how oppressed they are by the NRA (who never wrote or lobbied for a single one of the gun laws they broke).
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
ATFE director committee hearings
Senate Judiciary held hearings on confirming Michael Sullivan as director of ATFE. Red's Trading Post is not impressed.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
Student loan reduction/forgiveness
A posting, with links to an article on a bill passed by Congress, and expected to be signed by Pres. Bush, is here. Just for those of you who might benefit. Via Instapundit.
I do find bills (and bar dues, etc.) that give a special break to governmental employees, on the assumption they make less, interesting, Sometimes it's the case, sometimes not. When I went with Interior in '82, I got about 1/8 more than I was getting in the private sector, plus benefits. If I'd stayed with them, I'd be making over 100 thou, and looking at retirement soon on a nice pension and with continuing health benefits. That's better than a person makes in solo practice. On the other hand, a partner in a big firm does make twice that or more. And a county prosector or public defender makes less in most cases. So it's rather like the breaks for senior citizens. Some are barely scraping along, others are doing quite well compared to, say, a young couple with kids.
Self defense in Chicago
Story here.
Via Don Kates, who notes that the hope expressed that the defender's gun was registered is likely in vain, as Chicago has for sometime had a ban on registering handguns.
UPDATE: Reader David Lawson emails a comment blocked by the spam filter:
There is a chance it was registered, though unlikely. If the owner
had registered it prior to the ban in 1982 and maintained that
registration *yearly* or if the owner is a Chicago Alderman or if the
owner is a law enforcement officer or if the owner is a retired law
enforcement officer than the guy might be legal.
It is true we have protection against prosecution for unlawful use of
a weapon or failure to register the weapon or possession of an illegal
(non-NFA) weapon due to the Hale De Mar act. However, I am certain he
will not see that firearm back unless it is sold by the police to some
gangbangers that then use it against him.
New Blog -- End The War on Guns
Alert -- there's a new gun blog, End The War On Guns.
Debate on Saul Cornell's book "A Well Regulated Militia"
There's a debate going over at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online.
Here's Robert Churchill's review of the book.
Here's Saul Cornell's response.
And here's Robert Churchill's reply.
Milwaukee trial judge rules CCW unconstitutional as applied
Story here: now, it is a trial court, not an appellate one, and it is "as applied," in the context of a pizza deliveryman in a high-crime area.
Reading the opinion (linked to that page): He defended himself against an armed robbery, and was then charged with CCW for it. It wasn't the first time. The court applies the new state constitutional amendment on arms, the Wisconsin caselaw construing it, which essentially requires for concealed carry that the individual's need to carry outweigh the state's interest in enforcing CCW bans, and that the situation be such that open carry wasn't a feasible way to exercise the right to arms. The trial court concluded both were true and dismissed the prosecution.
Hat tip to Budd Schroeder....
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (3)
Premiere of my documentary!
"In Search of the Second Amendment" will have its screen premiere in Twin Falls, ID, on October 3 and 4. Courtesy of Red's Trading Post. Historian Clayton Cramer (as in the fellow who brought down Michael Bellesiles) will be there to speak and promote his recent book.
Permalink · documentary film · Comments (0)
Article on Parker in Legal Times
Parker attorney Bob Levy has published a concise article on the case in the Legal Times: here's a pdf of it.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (1)
Supreme Court case on the way
Watson v. United States, due to be argued October 9. Defendant received a firearm in exchange for drugs, and the issue is whether receiving a gun in payment for drugs constitutes "use" of a firearm in a drug transaction, which results in a greatly increased sentence. The Fifth Circuit said yes.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
Brady Campaign leaps aboard IACP (and Joyce) bandwagon
I posted with regard the International Assn of Chiefs of Police report, which was funded (and apparently written) by the Joyce Foundation. Today, Brady Campaign climbed aboard that bandwagon, meaning that their idea of "moderate, common-sense gun control" now includes, at a minimum:
Outlawing all private (non-dealer) gun transfers;
"Assault weapon" bans;
.50 caliber ban;
bans on handgun cartridges that can penetrate body armor (i.e., magnum chamberings, and probably a lot else -- the commonest form of body armor is meant to stand up to .38/9mm and nothing more potent -- not to mention that if a ban is written broadly it will include almost all rifle rounds, since pistols are available in .30-30, .35 Remington, etc.);
"health and safety" regulation of firearms design;
"one gun a month;"
repeal the Tiahrt Amendment to facilitate lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers;
and probably a lot else....
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Parker will be the national moot court problem
Just got word from Joe Olson that the 2008 Moot Court problem will be the Parker case. Not by name, but by content (in this hypothetical, a NY Senator murders another on the floor, and the legislature responds by banning handguns and requiring long arms to be disassembled. (I have the pdf file, but it's too big to download).
UPDATE: the National Moot Court is run by the New York City Bar Ass'n. If it's still as it was in the days I competed, each law school has internal competition in second year (and chooses their own topics). The school's winners of that become their third year team, and that team briefs and argues on the national topic in regional competitions. The winners of the regionals go on to the national competition.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
Guliani was about to muff it...
Stop the ACLU catches Rudi slipping as he is saved by the phone call from his wife...
“After all the second amendment is a freedom every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it — ‘the people shall be secure’ –let’s see, this is my wife calling…”
Whoops... lots of places you can slip up on the language of the Second Amendment, but it's not a good idea when addressing an NRA conference!
Michelle Malkin at Hotair is on the story, too, and notes that Rudi has a habit of being interrupted by phone calls from his wife during a campaign speech.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
How to handle a problem
Knoxville TN: a police officer, mistakenly thinking that if you have a CCW permit you MUST carry concealed, grabs, frisks, and threatens to arrest a permittee who was carrying openly.
The Chief of Police sends an apology, and a promise that officers will be given additional training in firearm laws. Although not in the story, the officer involved probably got some private criticism, if not a chewing out. That's how you handle things.
Bad choice
These robbers indeed picked the wrong pregnant woman.
Incidentally, you may note one of them was an illegal alien, who'd been charged with burglary previously, got probation and accepted "voluntary return." I.e., he wasn't deported, just signed a paper agreeing to return and was bussed back to the border. That was on Monday: on Thursday he's in Mesa, about 180 miles north of the border, and back into action.
[Update: yes, lucky she moved out of Chicago. If the Mesa PD is anything like the Tucson PD or Pima County Sheriff's Office, they probably told her to ditch the knife and get a gun, offered to put her in touch with their favorite dealer, and gave her a pitch on how easy it is to get a concealed carry permit. I once got stopped for speeding, politely offered the officer the .45 I had in the glove compartment, and he gave me a pitch for getting a CCW permit -- it's so easy and cheap -- so that I could carry it concealed anywhere and wouldn't have to leave it in the car where it might get stolen.]
Irony...
On Friday, Rudy Guliani is explaining to an NRA conference that he really's isn't antigun.
And on the same day, NYC is arguing in court against a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against gun dealers that he initiated.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
David A. Tomlinson dies
Dave Kopel notes the passing of David A. Tomlinson, President of the National Firearms Association of Canada, and a key defender of Canadians' firearm rights.
Roundup on candidate speeches at NRA conference
The Baltimore Sun says that intruding antiwar protestors gave McCain a shot at a reply, which drew a standing ovation.
Guliani's presentation was interrupted by a call from his wife, and this poster asks a few questions.
The Jackson Sun sums up Fred Thompson's presentation.
Fox News notes that Democrat Bill Richardson also showed, and noted that he had a CCW permit. It also notes Thompson's comment that he hangs out at gun stores and campaigns at gun shows.
Newsday says that Guliani says 9/11 altered his views on guns, and that he no longer supports the lawsuits that he began against firearm dealers.
Stop the ACLU reports that Thompson rules on the gun issue, though McCain put in a credible performance.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (1)
SCOTUSBlog on Parker & conserv. vs. liberal splits
ScotusBlog has an interesting insight for Court watchers. The media tends to portray the Court in simple liberal vs. conservative terms, and portrayed the last Term as a conservative "shift." But actually the Court doesn't make decisions as does a legislature: it decides what cases come before it. A typical Term will issue about 80 published decisions. Most of those will be on arcane points of little general interest -- antitrust, details of pension plans, habeas corpus procedure, etc. Only about five will have much in the way of general interest or political overtones. It was pure coincidence, SCOTUSBlog argues, that last Term's 4-5 such cases were ones in which the "conservative" side had the better case.
Next Term, it argues, the situation may be reversed. There are several appeals pending, or likely to be taken, where the "liberal" side has much the better argument. The blog notes that this may mean that in the months leading up to the election, the Court will seem to have "gone left," leaving conservatives able to make hay by arguing judicial appointments need to be moved right.
SCOTUSBlog calls Parker a likely win for DC. I'd strongly disagree, of course -- but remember the poster probably has little to no familiarity with the Second Amendment, and seems to basing that call on reading DC's petition -- which of course argues that the DC Circuit decision was an aberration, out of line with history ("sophisticated collective rights"), etc.. If you base your predictions on reading only the first brief, they're always going to be that the author of that brief wins in a slam-dunk.
UPDATE: As comments point out, the author of the blog entry is the attorney representing DC in the Supreme Court! So it's only natural that he predicts a win. Very few attorneys go into a case expecting to lose. And fewer still would care to put down in writing, posted to the Web, "I've billed my client a zillion hours on a case where I think we're going to lose."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (4)
NICS and identity theft
Clayton Cramer has questions why identity theft isn't reported to NICS. He cites the case of the four officers shot in Florida: the perp had apparently been the beneficiary of ID theft of a citizen with a clean record, and was thus able to buy guns without anything showing up.
C-SPAN to cover GOP candidate remarks to NRA Friday
Story here. It'll be on C-SPAN2 at 9 PM EDT.
For some reason the MSM has been referring to this as addressing the "rank and file" of NRA which (apart from TV coverage) it isn't.
In the meantime, Guliani and McCain spar on the gun issue.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
Terrorist watch list problems
Hmm... so there are proposals to make anyone on the terrorist watch list a prohibited possessor? Here's a discussion of a few problems the list has. Like snagging a State Department diplomat, lots of people with security clearances, an 82 year old veteran, soldiers on active duty flying on official business,
Joyce Foundation buys the International Assn of Chiefs of Police
They started by buying law reviews: now they're buying organizations, or at least their reports.
A while back, the antigun Joyce Foundation made a hefty grant to fund a gun summit meeting by some members of the International Assn of Chiefs of Police. Here's the pdf file.
Surprise! It concludes we need lots and lots of gun control. Ban "assault weapons," repeal the Tihart Amendment, ban .50 BMG, outlaw possession by anyone with a violent misdemeanor record, ban armor piercing using a standard of actual ability to penetrate body armor (which would encompass virtually any rifle round), outlaw private gun transfers, increase ATF's budget, etc., etc.
But the interesting part is that the International apparently let Joyce staffers write the report:
"We are grateful to several key staff at the Joyce Foundation; President Ellen Alberding for her leadership, passionate concern for quality of life in our communities, and particularly for her interest in partnering with the IACP to address gun violence, Program Officer Roseanna Ander for her dedication to reducing gun violence in the Great Lake States and the nation, and her relentless enthusiasm as she worked with IACP staff to make the summit a reality and Communications Director Mary O’Connell, who has aided in highlighting and supporting the vision of our summit participants through her editing, writing and consistent work to produce this report. "
Continue reading "Joyce Foundation buys the International Assn of Chiefs of Police"
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (14)
Latest developments in Parker
I'm back in town, and at the volokh conspiracy, Dave Kopel has a post on developments in Parker. Basically:
The Parker plaintiffs won in the Circuit Court on two grounds. Both the handgun ban, and the ban on having a functional (assembled, not trigger locked) shotgun or rifle in the house, were struck down.
DC asked the Circuit Court to "stay the mandate." When an appellate court issues an opinion, that gives its reasoning. After a period of time (to let the parties file an appeal, or not) it issues a mandate, which is the actual order to the lower court to do things ... strike down the statute, in this case. DC moved for and got a stay order, which held off issuing the mandate until it could file with the Supremes.
BUT DC only appealed the handgun ban to the Supremes.
So the Parker plaintiffs are now asking the Circuit to lift the stay of mandate as to the ban on functional rifles and shotguns. DC hasn't taken that to the Supremes, the time for doing so has run out.
I could see the circuit going either way on the motion. DC will likely argue that if it wins on its first theory in the Supremes (there is no individual right) that the functional gun ban will be constitutional. On the other hand, it didn't appeal that issue, and it is a binding judgment. I don't know if its omission is a tactical move (if they want to argue that the handgun ban is a limited measure, they'd rather not talk about the requirement to deactivate rifles and shotguns, too) or just a slip up by DC. As a tactical move: all the parties are going to be arguing the rifle and shotgun ban anyway, it's not like you can hide it by omitting it. As a slip up: I trust in going before the Supremes people vet their case a bit more carefully than that. I tend to think it's a tactical move, but am unsure.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (8)
Still out of pocket
Conference today on some legal matters, back East, then fly home this afternoon and evening, should be back to gunblogging tommorrow....
Right now in a government run hotel. Some place run by FDIC for its visitors, and part contracted out to the state. The result is, well, what you'd expect from a government run hotel.
One soda and one ice machine, on the first floor. No coffee makers in the room; you can come down to the cafeteria when it's open.
You must get an ID when you check in, (actually, before you check in: first you get the badge, then you get to talk to the front desk),wear that badge at all times, and in addition show a picture ID when entering the building.
Internet by ethernet only. The cable in the room was broken but at least the desk had a replacement.
A general look like something from Havana, or perhaps an American low security prison.
The latest extreme
Graduates at Cornerstone Elementary School in California traditionally placed images of what they wanted to be when they grew up on the front of their graduation caps.
This year, those that placed plastic soldiers there were told that they must remove the tiny rifles from their hands, lest it offend the no tolerance of weapons policy
Via Gun Watch.
Fred Thompson and the NRA
Seems there's a dispute as to whether he's a life member or an endowment member. Story here.
Continue reading "Fred Thompson and the NRA"
Permalink · Politics · Comments (7)
Off at the NRA meeting
I haven't been posting since I'm attending an NRA Board meeting (I'm not a Board member, just an attendee). I'll post more later, but one interesting fact. A pollster asked people if they are NRA members, and got numbers indicating that about 33 million Americans would answer "yes."
NRA of course has maybe a tenth of that number. This was confusing.
They went back and asked people how they had joined. It turns out that any number believed that attending NRA firearms courses automatically makes you a member. Some even thought just buying a gun makes you one!
Teacher sues over CCW in Oregon
Story here. Oregon law allows CCW holder to carry on school grounds, and she has good reason to need self defense capabilities. But the school district contends that, even tho such carrying is legal, their policies can forbid it: a person couldn't be prosecuted, but could be fired, essentially.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (21)
Anti gun legislator arrested for DUI, flight & damaging squad car
I can't beat Instapundit's summary: more support for the theory that antigunners assume we have their lack of self control. And that certain legislators think they are above the law. DUI and leaving the scene would be pretty bad -- but finishing the drink in front of the officer? [Corrected to delete the mention of pulling a gun: the report above apparently got that wrong]
Gad--even more. He was totally crocked, rear-ended a car, led police on a 100 mph chase, kicked out the window of a patrol car while under arrest, and he's chairman of judiciary committee! The officers didn't give a sobriety test because he was so unsteady they feared he'd fall and injure himself. Story here.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (10)
Cross-petition filed in Parker
It's in pdf here. Basically, the Parker ruling was that five of six plaintiffs did not have standing to sue since they had not been threatened with prosecution, but that one (who applied for and was denied a handgun permit) did have standing. The Circuit then ruled in favor of that one. This cross-petition seeks to establish that the others (who include Parker) should be allowed to sue, also.
Standing is very wierd here. I just wrote a law rev. article on it. Supreme Court rulings over the last thirty years have made it reasonably clear that if your conduct is inhibited by a law you argue is unconstitutional, that's enough "injury in fact" to have standing to sue. But in the 6th, 9th and DC Circuits, there is a much stricter standard, not for all cases, only for ones challenging firearms laws. Then you don't have "injury in fact" unless you are personally threatened with prosecution, or prosecuted. (Or at least have some other special qualifier: in the 6th, you're an FFL, or in DC, the gun you make is specifically named in an assault weapon ban).
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (9)
Concealed Carry Legal Services
An interesting idea. Texas only, now anyway. You subscribe for an annual fee, and if you're in a defensive shooting situation, they will dispatch an attorney to the scene, 24/7.
[The comments do have a good point: with a service like this, you get whoever is available at the moment, who's never known you, and is of unknown skill].
British editorial
In the London Times. An excerpt:
"In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.
We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. ..."
Interesting editorial
In the Naples Daily News.
"Most of us would be safer and air travel would be somewhat smoother if we the people form our own well-ordered militia aboard airliners.
Why stop at airliners? Current gun control laws haven’t done much to prevent nut cases from walking into a school or office and opening fire on whoever happens to be there. Every now and then a person usually described in the news as “disgruntled” blasts away at his fellow workers. Postal employees seem particularly prone to this. Frankly, I’ve wondered for years why some disgruntled writer doesn’t spray the offices of a New York publishing house with bullets.
Be that as it may, gun control advocates have not been very successful at controlling the wackos who kill people with guns. And those who oppose gun control point out — correctly, I’m afraid — that when guns are illegal only the crooks will be armed. It seems quite true that if the students or faculty of Virginia Tech had been able to shoot back at their attacker, many lives would have been saved.
You see where this is leading. Instead of trying to restrict ownership of guns, we should make it a requirement that every adult citizen owns a gun and takes regular lessons in how to use it. Those lessons would include instructions on gun safety, so that children won’t have access to loaded weapons."
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Corruption in New Jersey
Some thoughts on the subject:
"Since he was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush, Christie has come to resemble a kid fresh out of boot camp who finds himself at one of those Italian, Chinese, Mexican all-you-can-eat buffets. Where to begin?
Harry Pozycki, chairman of the board of trustees of Citizens Campaign, a political watchdog group, recalled Christie telling him he had indicted or convicted more than 100 public officials in New Jersey.
Pozycki remembers Christie saying: "You might expect that after doing 100 public officials, I might be starting to see some daylight, getting near the end of the road. But I've actually got more targets than I had when I started."
Soon after he became Wyatt Earp, it was assumed that Christie, a Republican, had his eyes on elective office, perhaps a United States senator from New Jersey. Or, perhaps governor.
My thinking is, if the Democrats could have seen into the future, they'd have dropped everything long ago to create a Christie For Senate political-action committee, to get him the heck out of Dodge and send him on his way to Washington.
Where would a Democrat politician rather see Christie today? In Washington in place of one of their own, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg. Or, at his U.S. Attorney's office in Newark, with subpoena power and the FBI on speed dial?"
Author of Parker decision a possible Atty General nominee?
The Washington Post reports that possible nominees for Attorney General include former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, former deputy AG George J. Terwilliger III, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who authored Parker v. DC.
It'd be a clear conflict for a judge to rule on a case he'd argued as an advocate, but I wonder if it would be a conflict for an AG to take a position on a case he'd decided as a judge?
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (7)
California ...
Let's see... it just banned lead projectiles in condor habitat, and enacted a microstamping requirement, all in the same week.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Violence Policy Center takes aim at veterans
VPC takes aim at veterans. It's upset that the proposed NICS changes might be too liberal toward vets who have at some point been diagnosed as having mental illness.
" Under the new standard, federal departments or agencies would be prohibited from providing certain mental health records (including mental health records of veterans) to the NICS if the records fell into any of several newly defined categories. For example, if a mental health patient has been "fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring," the record of his treatment or hospitalization could not be submitted to the NICS and the individual would be permitted to possess firearms."
"The bill would re-establish a federal "relief" mechanism for persons prohibited from possessing guns because of a mental health disability and would also require states to establish similar state-based "relief from disability" systems in order to be eligible for the grants the bill makes available to improve mental health records."
"This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (5)
Discussions on Parker and "reasonable regulation"
Over at SCOTUSBlog. A few samples are extended remarks below.
Continue reading "Discussions on Parker and "reasonable regulation""
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
New website for Parker v. DC case
Plaintiffs'/Respondents' attorneys have established a new website and blog covering the case, complete with FAQ. So far as I know, it's the first time a Supreme Court appeal has had either a website or a blog. Most appeals are so ... twentieth century, if you know what I mean.
Update: yep, I'd agree that by this point everyone knows everyone else's arguments by heart. Thought I did think DC went a bit overboard by setting out a lot of their merits arguments in the cert. petition, because that gave everyone their new position, in lots of detail, months before any merits briefs would be due. If there are any tactical calls that should be kept quiet, I would be sure they won't appear in the blog!
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (7)
John Lott on DC gun law
He has an op-ed in the Washington Times today.
"The city's brief focuses only on murder rates in discussing crime in D.C. Yet, in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. But there is one fact that seems particularly hard to ignore. D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but has only once fallen below what it was in 1976 (that happened years later, in 1985). Does D.C. really want to argue that the gun ban reduced the murder rate?
Similarly for violent crime, from 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. These drops and subsequent increases were much larger than any changes in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. For example, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than in the neighboring states during the five years before the ban and rose back 3.8 times more in the five years after it. D.C.'s murder rate also rose relative to that in other similarly sized cities."
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (8)
VA Tech shooting report
At The American Spectator, Robert VerBruggen has a pretty devastating critique of the gun-related aspects of the report on the Virginia Tech shootings.
Got quoted in Washington Times
I got a brief quote in a Washington Times editorial on the Parker case.
They trimmed down a point that I'd made. I said that I think of us as having four high-probability votes: Thomas and Scalia for sure, Roberts and Alito as high probability. As to the other five -- don't count this as the usual liberal wing vs. conservative wing, divide 4-1-4 with Kennedy the swing vote. The best academics arguing for an individual right -- William van Alstyne, Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, etc. -- are all very liberal. Don Kates and Joe Olson are former civil rights workers, who came to the second amendment issue after defending themselves in that role. This is an issue where any of the "liberal wing" could very well side with an individual right -- or heck, they ALL might.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
Calif. forbids gun confiscations in an emergency
There may be hope for the People's Republic yet.
It is interesting, tho, that it passed the Senate on 21-16 vote, and one of its opponents complained that "They want to do anything they possibly can to see there is no way we can control guns in our society."
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
Calif. forbids gun confiscations in an emergency
There may be hope for the People's Republic yet.
It is interesting, tho, that it passed the Senate on 21-16 vote, and one of its opponents complained that "They want to do anything they possibly can to see there is no way we can control guns in our society."
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Guliani & Paul repeat stance on guns
In the debate last night:
GOLER: Mayor Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson -- and we do wish he was here -- says the Virginia Tech tragedy might have been lessened if some of the students had been allowed to carry guns. He also says that...
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
He also says he never felt safe in your city because of its gun control laws. What do you have to say to him about either of these assertions?
GIULIANI: Well, I would say to him the FBI would disagree with that. New York City was, during the years that I was mayor, the safest large city in the United States. In fact, in 2000, which was one of the last years that I was mayor, it was 191 for crime in the country.
For example, in Boston, there was a 59 percent greater chance you'd be the victim of a crime than in New York City. In many other cities, there was 100 to 300 percent greater chance that you'd be a victim of a crime than in New York City.
One of the things I accomplished as mayor of New York City was the impossible.
GIULIANI: I took a city that was the crime capital of America, and I made it not only the safest large city in America, I made it safer than 189 small cities. So, I mean, people have their right to their own feelings. The reality is, you were safer in New York than just about any other city in the United States after I was mayor for about three or four years.
GOLER: And the idea of letting college students carry weapons?
GIULIANI: I think states have a right to decide that. I mean, states have a right to decide their gun laws. The second amendment grants you the right to bear arms.
We have a federal system. A lot of these issues work in America where we have people of different views and different conscience because we are a federal system. We allow states to make different decisions.
The focus of our laws should be on criminals. That's what I did in New York City. I reduced shootings in New York City by 75 percent. And I did it by focusing not on guns but on criminals. Putting them in jail, putting them in jail for long periods of time when they committed crimes with guns, and it worked.
(APPLAUSE)
GOLER: Congressman Paul, another gun issue for you, if you will. You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they'd felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed.
We have seen airplanes -- airflights diverted because people heard Arabic on planes, because they heard Muslims praying. What do you think it would do to the travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns aboard, sir?
PAUL: Well, first off, you're quoting me incorrectly.
GOLER: I'm sorry.
PAUL: I said the responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government -- not the passengers. The airline's responsible for the aircraft and the passengers.
If we wouldn't have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts, because the airlines would have had the responsibility.
PAUL: But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility and private property and second amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government. And look at the mess we have now at airports.
I mean, the airlines -- private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up, and if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the second amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening.
(APPLAUSE)"
Hmm... Guliani's pitch could be interpreted as (1) "I believe in the Second Amendment, but don't believe the 14th Amendment incorporates that as against the States, so States are free to experiment but the Feds are not," or (2) "I believe in the Second Amendment, but in a version of that that leaves government free to pass whatever laws it wants anyway." I tend to suspect version (2) is the one intended here.
At a policy, rather than constitutional, level, one would have to ask: if states should be free to experiment, would you favor repeal of a fair portion of GCA 68 -- e.g., the prohibited person categories -- in favor of a provision that simply says no person shall sell a firearm to someone prohibited by state law to have it.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
"Culture of corruption" in Bloomberg's mayors' group?
Third Power reports that Mayor Samuel Rivera of Passiac NJ, a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has been arrested on federal corruption charges.
He joins Frank Melton, of Jackson MS, another of the Mayor's group, who plead to weapons infractions after he and his bodyguards broke into a house.
Has Bloomberg's mayors group created a culture of corruption? Perhaps someone should demand their resignations!
Add to that a plea to tax evasion and mail fraud by a Brady Campaign LEO, with another such LEO in in hot water over accepting gifts, and certainly sounds as if that's occurring. All this is in the last twelve months, too.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
Promoting 2nd Amendment documentary film
I've been trying to promote In Search of the Second Amendment, but have been pretty swamped lately.
David Codrea has a couple of interesting suggestions for anyone interested. If you have a Netflix or Blockbuster account, he has webpages where you can suggest that they stock it. (Commenters suggest that doing a search on Netflix for it will also start to trigger their software/thinking). He also suggests requests to public & university libraries to carry it.
Permalink · documentary film · Comments (0)
Evolution of the 4473 form
Thoughts here on how it went from a one page to a three page form, from "the yellow form" to white paper, etc., etc.
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (1)
Steve Halbrook on disarmament during Nazi period
Steve Halbrook just released new paper on Nazi efforts to disarm Jews and other targets in the time around the Night of the Broken Glass. He includes a study of Nazi arrest reports relating to guns (it helps that Steve is fluent in German!)
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
Another Brady Campaign LEO spokesman bites the dust
From a Brady Campaign press release attacking Florida's expansion of self defense: "Police chiefs who opposed the new Florida law include ... Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne, (954) 831- 8900."
From their Shoot First website: "The Florida statute was passed over the strong objections of law enforcement officials and prosecutors. Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne opposed the law because "it's easy to say after the fact, I felt threatened." "
From today's Sun-Sentinel: "Federal prosecutors: Jenne agrees to plead guilty to tax evasion, mail fraud"
He's apparently looking at 1.5 - 2 years behind bars.
[UPDATE: I invented "the curse of the gunnies," think it was in a humorous piece for Gun Week back in the late 70s, a tale in which the bill of rights is protected by a curse -- some say carved inside Madison's casket. I noted that the prime mover behind the National Firearms Act died of a heart attack on the Senate floor, while his NRA opponents lived to 96 and 112, that Sen. Dodd's career ended in censure and disgrace, etc., etc.]
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (13)
DC files in Parker
DC has reportedly filed for cert. in Parker.
UPDATE: they did indeed. Here's the petition. Basically sophisticated collective rights (with additional argument that 2nd A. was meant to protect states against the federal government, and DC is not a state but the seat of the federal government, and a handgun ban is reasonable regulation since it's only aimed at one type of gun which is nasty.
[Update: filing an amicus basically involves (1) find a suitable person or group on whose behalf it can be filed. Usually a group. I've never heard of an individual, though that may have been done somewhere and I just never heard of it. (2) Someone to write the brief. (3) Finding an area to write it on, which means coordinating with other amici. Courts *hate* it when you have a bunch of amici who just pick the 2-3-4 most obvious issues, which are probably already covered in the parties' briefs, and write on that. The court winds up reading the same point over and over. (4) Financing. Supreme Court briefs have to be printed. As in a printing press, and preferrably a printer who specializes in that. When last I briefed in the Supreme Court, the cost of a party brief was several thousand bucks. Amicus briefs can be a lot shorter, but prices have probably risen in the 15 years since I picked up that tab.]
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (7)
DC on Parker case (Wash. Post).
Here's a WashPo op-ed by the mayor and something called the Attorney General of DC on the case.
Not terribly illuminating. (1) Nevermind the text and history, the courts didn't recognize this right before and thus shouldn't now; (2) the 2nd Amendment only covers the Federal government ... uh, and while DC is part of that government, it ought to be treated like a State anyway; (3) complete prohibition of handguns is "reasonable regulation" because you can own other types of arms (not mentioning... with a police permit, and only if they are disassembled or trigger-locked. No sense making life dangerous for DC's criminal class).
Lengthy debate on Parker
Over at the Federalist Society Online Debate website. Long, but explores the issues in a fair amount of detail. Partipants are Parker attorneys Alan Gura, Bob Levy and Clark Neilly, Glenn Reynolds, Saul Cornell, and Dennis Hennigan and Josh Horowitz of a couple of antigun groups.
Link via the BitchGirls.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
Profile of homicide victims
Data here. The vast majority of homicide victims have criminal records, usually extensive ones, and the trend has been increasing:
"In Baltimore, about 91 percent of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74 percent a decade ago, police reported. In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes... Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up, to 75 percent this year from 71 percent in 2005, department statistics show.
In Milwaukee, ... 77 percent of murder victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests."
Hat tip to Joe Olson, who pointed out that Don Kates has been studying and documenting this fact for about thirty years, with little coverage in the press.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (5)
Panel on originalism
Legal Theory blog reports a fascinating panel discussion on the nature of originalism. Wish I could have been there.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
Arms show in Great Britain
Alphecca notes there will be an arms show in Great Britain -- with 4,000 police assigned for security.
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
New gun blog
There's a new gun blog up, Live Wire. Current postings on the Yugoslavian SKS, ammo price increases, and self defense cases. Take a look!