« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
October 2007
A bloggers' halloween
Hat tip to Instapundit...
Permalink · humor · Comments (0)
Gun Guys gaffe
The Gun Guys (which is actually an antigun page) has a posting proclaiming how a mentally-disturbed fellow was shot by police after he got a " .50 caliber rifle with a scope on it and pointed it at officers. "
They use this as a opportunity to go with their .50 spiel:
"t's terrifying to think what might have happened if an officer was shot with such a devastating weapon. It's ours, and certainly every officer's worst nightmare. A weapon designed to shoot down civilian aircraft during takeoff and landing would devastate and rip apart a person's body if shot by one of these powerful weapon." Can shoot down an airliner, etc., etc.
But if you check out the story you find:
"Jessica says they told police Casey had no black powder for the muzzle loader, but police say they can't take that chance."
Hat tip to Joshua Berger...
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (26)
Debate on varieties and validity of originalism
It's interesting, if rather technical, over a Legal Theory Blog.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
City of Gary wins on appeal
Very brief news story here. It suggests that Gary, in its suit against gun manufacturers, argued the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was unconstitutional (basis not stated).
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (9)
Off topic....
Just got an email from an old friend, Tom Wyld, whom I met when he headed ILA public affairs, as I remember. He's found a new career in rock music (talk about career changes!) You can sample his work, and latest album "Wyld Dark Heart" here.
He asks that folks go here and cast a vote for Wyld, Dark Heart for artist of the month.
UPDATE: check the comments for more details on the band and what it's doing!
Guliani hires NRA director Joe Allbaugh
Story here.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
I can see why the FEC is investigating Stephen Colbert
Yeah, he says he's a comedian and not a real candidate, but if he keeps writing material like this he's soon going to be a viable candidate.
"Our nation is at a Fork in the Road. Some say we should go Left; some say go Right. I say, “Doesn’t this thing have a reverse gear?” Let’s back this country up to a time before there were forks in the road — or even roads. Or forks, for that matter. I want to return to a simpler America where we ate our meat off the end of a sharpened stick."
Hat tip to The Anchoress.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Fred Thompson on 2nd Amendment & the UN
It's at the Field and Stream blog.
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Interesting view of Parker v. DC
Over at Concurring Opinions, a former Ass't US Attorney for DC gives her take. She expects cert. to be granted, and adds "I think it's worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it's used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool." That is, it wasn't employed for its own sake, but (1) it was used to lock up defendants whom they suspected, but could not prove, were violent, and (2) those allowed to plead out were required to agree to be debriefed about their knowledge of crime in the area.
Those seem rather doubtful objectives for a law of this type... but even so, could have been met with almost any other form of law, even permissive CCW licensing. Odds are that persons suspected of ongoing violence already have a criminal record that would disqualify them, or at the very least, wouldn't care for the attention that would follow filing an application.
Hat tip to Rob Allen.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
It must be "no tolerance" Monday
Willow Creek High School (Phoenix AZ area) suspends 17 yr old Kim Peters for "possession of a dangerous instrument." Basis of the charge: Peters, a skeet competitive shooter (and attendee at the Junior Olympic shooting camp), forgot and left two boxes of shotgun shells in her car when she parked on school property.
And Luke Sheahan reports being rousted by TSA for having something resembling a bullet on his keychain.
interesting project
It's Thank a Soldier. T shirts that read on the front "got freedom?" and on the back "thank a (name of branch)". 25% of proceeds go to groups that aid servicemen.
I guess Justice Thomas will never win over one Harvard Law student
From the Harvard Law School paper:
"I still can't stand him. Hours before the program aired I made the joke "all of this black-on-black crime and we can't get one [black person] to take this fool out?" Let's just say that nothing occurred in the time between me making that joke then and me writing this column now that persuades me to recant that line."
Real nice way to think and to write.
ATF recordkeeping
Article here. High point:
"A gun manufacturer who specializes in legal reproductions of historic weaponry told WND a recent audit of the business found no discrepancies in his records, but it did reveal mistakes in the ATF records.
"What was of particular interest to me was that the NFRTR [BATFE's bound book of machineguns, etc] was off by four machineguns," Len Savage, of Historic Arms LLC, said.
"It is so bad [the BATFE own record keeping] that the inspectors have a form for correcting it using dealers records," he said. He submitted a Freedom of Information Act request and discovered that the federal agency "is very quietly trying to fix their own inept record keeping by using our [store and business] records to fill in the gaps."
An ATF inspector, Herbert Blount, told Savage that when the agency moved to a new building, officials "lost/misplaced" records for more than 500 businesses and replacements were being sought."
Hat tip to Red's Trading Post...
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
Post on candidate Bill Richardson
Over at Jim Pate's blog. (I've known Jim for years, didn't know that he blogged):
"What really caught my attention was a question that Brian Williams asked him in the first Democratic debate that I watched. I don't remember much of the question or the answer, but I recall Brian Williams saying that Bill Richardson had the highest National Rifle Association rating of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. My jaw dropped. A Democrat has the highest NRA rating? That doesn't speak well for the Republicans, does it?
As I did some research in preparation for this post, I found that Richardson has actually received a decent mark from another conservative/libertarian organization: the Cato Institute. In the Cato Institute's Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2004, Richardson received a "B," which is in stark contrast to Mitt Romney's "C" and Mike Huckabee's "D."..."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (5)
Article on upcoming Term
In the Washington Post.
Hat tip to reader Marcus Poulin....
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Light blogging
I'll be light on the blogging today and Saturday, as I'm out of town...
"Empty Holsters Protests" at campuses getting some coverage
At least FoxNews is covering them.
DC's reply on cert. in Parker
It's here, in pdf. No big surprises. Urges Court to consider only the handgun ban (and not the "functional firearm" ban), argues Miller, etc.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
Winchester 70 is back!
Press release here.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (6)
Time magazine on police killings
Time Magazine wonders why killings of police officers are up (although far below the high point during the urban Crack Wars).
Could things like this have some slight relevance here?
Mitt Romney on banning "extreme weapons"
Red's Trading Post has received a letter from Mitt Romney, in response to a question about his understanding of the Second Amendment, which to my mind shows... he has none:
"I strongly support the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms."
.....
" I also recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business being on the streets."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (25)
Texas Land Commissioner bars sale to Park Service
NPR story here, of course displeased over the idea that Texas would refuse to sell 10,000 acres to the US Park Service, because Park Service forbids hunting.
I know Jerry Patterson, the Commissioner, first met him over the Waco matter many years back. Not at all surprised -- he's bright, dedicated and completely pro-Second Amendment.
Update: here's Patterson's reply to critics of his decision.
More on New York's "musket loophole"
"Last week, The Investigators went undercover to expose a gaping loophole in New York state's gun laws. Now Governor Eliot Spitzer is promising to examine the problem more closely."
.....
"The black powder rifle's exemption from gun laws is one of the last remaining major gun loopholes in the state of New York. But the days of buying this deadly weapon no questions asked may be numbered.
Our undercover investigation showed with alarming clarity just how easy it is to get a black powder rifle in New York."
Permalink · media · Comments (14)
"Empty Holsters Protest" at U of Ky this week
And Clayton Cramer has the University's quite decent response, an email giving everyone a heads up and adding "At UK, we cherish and affirm the right of free speech on campus and certainly recognize and respect the right of this group to conduct a peaceful protest."
Website for personal protection devices
Right here. Since I live in AZ, my personal protection tools are in .45, but those who have the misfortune to live where that isn't permissible might find this page interesting. (Actually, they have a lot of interesting devices -- a device to awaken a driver if he dozes off, a recorder that plays audio of a big dog barking, a stun gun that looks like a cell phone (useful in areas that forbid stun guns), etc.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Dave Kopel's newsletter
I just cut and pasted the source code in extended remarks below, because had so much useful info. It also has a link to subscribe.
Continue reading "Dave Kopel's newsletter"
Albany law school symposium
Here is a podcast of an anti-second amendment seminary I'd put a bit of money on the proposition that Joyce Foundation put up the cash for it, as it's pretty obvious the speakers are stacked in favor of one side.
Rather fair article -- on machineguns!
From the not-exactly pro-gun Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
"Randy Powell has a .50-caliber machine gun he would like to sell you —but he can't afford to.
The monster, sitting in a cage in back of his gun store and shooting range in Lawrenceville, can cut down a tree — and could easily fetch $30,000 in a perfectly legal sale. But for Powell, the sale would be the equivalent of hawking a Picasso or vintage wine.
The gun increases in value exponentially each year....."
Hat tip to reader Justin Martin.
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (3)
Strange happenings in Louisiana
They elect an Indian-American governor who is pro-gun, anti-tax, wants to go after corruption -- is that allowed in LA? I thought they had laws against this sort of candidacy.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (5)
Off topic but quite annoying
From ABC News, "The Case for Israel's Strike Against Syria":
"A senior U.S. official told ABC News the Israelis first discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility early in the summer, and the Mossad — Israel's intelligence agency — managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee....
But the hardest evidence of all was the photographs.
The official described the pictures as showing a big cylindrical structure, with very thick walls all well-reinforced. The photos show rebar hanging out of the cement used to reinforce the structure, which was still under construction."
Great. Some ^% leaker, for the sake of ego, or maintaining a tie with the media, plus ABC itself, for the sake of releasing a story, lets the world know that (1) there is a spy in the facility, (2) he took photos (let's start asking if anyone saw a fellow that might be hiding a camera) and (3) the exact state of the construction at the point when the spy was there and taking pictures.
Permalink · media · Comments (7)
Here's a story that deserves more coverage
From the Arizona Daily Star.
Basically, the Phoenix AZ published an article critical of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that mentioned his home address -- not out of nastiness, but because the article concerned his realty holdings. No problem. BUT the story was also carried on its webpage, and there is a statute making it a felony to put a law enforcement officer's home address on the internet IF it poses an imminent threat to them.
The Maricopa County Attorney figures he has a conflict of interest, since the alternative paper also criticizes him a lot. He hands the case to another county attorney. But they do nothing (which, I'd suggest , is just what they should do), and so he takes it back (you'd think doing so involves a conflict) and hires a former associate as a special prosecutor.
Whereupon the guy has two executives of the alternative paper arrested and hauled away in handcuffs, convenes a grand jury, and subpeonas all the paper's website internet data, including the last three years' visitors logs (including the websites that each visitor had visited before going to the newspaper).
This is pretty dang shocking to me, and I think it deserves wider coverage (and the officials involved deserve investigation, not to mention un-election if not impeachment).
Permalink · General con law · Comments (12)
Executive power and all that
Instapundit has a post that should be read by anyone concerned about government under law and trifles like that should read. Basically, in 1982 -- that's right, '82 -- a guy is convicted under a statute on exports. The prosecution had a minor problem: the statute had expired before his act took place. This is normally something of a problem in a prosecution.
But, the Ninth Circus, excuse me, Circuit held, that was no worry. President Ford had issued an Exec Order extending the term of the statute, pursuant to a provision in the statue that allowed its extension during a national emergency.
Apart from the constitutional problems I see in Congress allowing the President to extend the duration of one of its laws ... little things like separation of powers and accountability and due process and trifles like that ... President Ford didn't declare a national emergency, he relied on prior declarations by Harry S. Truman relating to the Korean War, and a 1971 declaration by Richard Nixon relating to an international monentary crisis, neither of which had anything to do with the situation at hand.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (7)
New York TV station focuses on "muzzle-loader loophole"
Channel 7 (ABC, NYC) is on a crusade... not against "assault weapons," handguns, .50 cals, but to close the musket loophole. They have calls in to the Governor's Office, asking what he's going to do about the risk of criminals and lunatics going on a rampage with an 1861 Springfield, or perhaps a flintlock plains rifle.
You can picture the headlines: "SWAT team rushes sniper, takes powder horn from his hand"
Permalink · media · Comments (15)
USF on hunting accidents
United Sportsmen of Florida has released this pdf (small) comparing annual injuries and injury rates for various sports. As might be expected, hunting comes in last.
At least some good news from California
LaMalfa Bill to Prevent Firearm Confiscation Signed:
National Rifle Association Praises LaMalfa Bill
SACRAMENTO – Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa’s AB 1645 was signed into law over the weekend by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The legislation prevents state and local government from confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens during emergencies.
During the State of Emergency after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans officials issued confiscation orders for all firearms, including those possessed by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves and their property. The confiscation left law abiding citizens at the mercy of armed thugs and looters, with little hope of protection by law enforcement. Many residents of New Orleans are still waiting to get their guns back and are currently suing the City of New Orleans over the confiscations.
“The most basic cornerstone of our liberty and safety is the ability and right to own and keep firearms,” said Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. “What more basic need is there than to protect the safety of your family in a time of emergency? Firearms are the most immediate form of protection for families in an emergency. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere and the ability of individuals to protect themselves and their families from would-be-criminals is vital.”
National Rifle Association Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox said, “In passing this law, Assemblyman LaMalfa and California’s General Assembly acted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners when their rights are most vital. During a time when there is no 9-1-1 or police upon which to rely, honest citizens will never again have to worry that their only means of self protection from looters or thugs will be taken away by the government.”
“On behalf of our thousands of NRA members in California, I want to thank Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa for his leadership and commitment to bringing the ‘Emergency Powers’ bill to passage in both chambers of the General Assembly,” concluded Cox. “His support was instrumental in seeing this fundamental protection signed into law.”
Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing the Second Assembly District including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter and Yolo counties.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Airport security
A timely article on TSA:
"The railroads also confronted a real enemy. They neither lied nor exaggerated the risks because that would cost them customers. Contrast that with the bureaucrats at the TSA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security. They depend on taxpayers’ fears of ubiquitous, magically lethal terrorists for their jobs and cushy offices. (The TSA’s headquarters boasts $500,000 worth of silk plants and artwork, a 4,200-square-foot fitness center, and seven kitchens.) So does their army of 45,000 airport screeners. Indeed, the government’s incentives are not only perverse but directly opposite the railroads’: the bigger the threat, the more government passengers “need” and the more eagerly they cede their freedom. The TSA has every reason to overstate the number of terrorists. And does: the notorious “No-Fly List” topped out at 325,000 names. Can there really be that many folks living in caves while dreaming of sky-high suicide? Even the TSA tacitly admitted that this was nonsense last November when it claimed to be pruning the roster by half. Still . . . 162,500 explosive cavemen?
The TSA can espouse such balderdash because neither passengers nor markets influence it. That frees it from common sense and rational decisions. It responds solely to the politicians who created and sustain it. And as long as they profit from voters’ fears, the TSA will pretend passengers are pathological."
It's timely, because of this article in USAToday:
"Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players.
San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco."
Hat tip to David McCleary....
Larry Elder on school shootings
Article here.
Texas man who shot two burglars...
Instapundit is down on the FoxNews reporter who, well, stalked him, and with good reason.
UPDATE: it appears the reporter has been suspended. Maybe someone can find her, interview her and ask if those are tears of remorse?
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
Support for second amendment from the left
Article here.
"So why keep them? If we look to our constitutional history, the answer is much more obvious than hunting, tradition and domestic protection. Like everything in the Bill of Rights, it is a safeguard against only one entity: the government. For me, this is the only even remotely logical reason to keep deadly weapons on the streets. It is important, to protect us from tyranny, that the politicians know their citizens are armed. Can we, the people, stop a professional army? Can we actually overthrow the government in some doomsday scenario? It's hard to say. But one thing's for certain: We stand a much better chance if we have guns. I think the founders realized this, and so, when they drafted the Second Amendment, they made sure to include the words "free state." In this, there's one other worthwhile benefit: protection. My guess is that it's harder to invade an armed country than an unarmed one, and national security is a reasonable justification for the right to be armed. "
ATF publc affairs exaggerations
A while back I posted on how the ATF Seattle Office had had to back off from claims it was involved in a massive roundup of gang members ... which turned out to be a much smaller roundup of non gang members, for non-gun offenses.
Red's Trading Post has a long list of other exaggerations coming out of that office.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (0)
Photos up from 2007 Gun Rights Policy Conference
Right here.
Article on Armenian genocide and disarmament
In the National Review Online.
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (3)
California microstamping bill
I was so busy on a case yesterday that I didn't mention that the Calif. "microstamping" gun bill was signed into law. There's already a lively debate at CalGuns on whether it will have any effect within our lifetimes because (1) the requirement doesn't activate until microstamping is outside of patent protection and (2) a company has a patent on it that runs until around 2023.
Hat tip to Paul Nelson...
UPDATE: see the comment by David Codrea. The patent holder says he will make it available to domestic mfrs without paying a royalty.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (8)
Gun blogger rendezvous
I couldn't make it, but SayUncle has story.
Permalink · Festivals · Comments (4)
Upcoming Supreme Court case on GCA
Nice, obscure, facts. A component of GCA as it now stands is the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes an enhanced penalty (15 years in this case) for a felon in possession who has three prior violent felony convictions. It incorporates the GCA's definition of felony (offense punishable by a year or more, unless designated a misdemeanor and punishable by no more than two years; exception generally if civil rights have been restored).
Defendant was a felon in possession due to a drug conviction. He had three conviction for misdemeanor battery BUT because of his prior those were punishable by three years' imprisonment.
The trial court gave him the 15 years, reasoning (1) the three batteries count -- they were misdemeanors, but punishable by up to three years. And they were "violent," so they count. (2) The exception for having rights restored doesn't apply. (He couldn't have gotten civil rights restoration, simply because those are misdemeanors and those don't lose any civil rights). "Restored" implies losing something and getting it back, not a situation where you never lost anything.
Apparently there's a circuit split: the 1st Circuit went the other way on this. More thoughts in extended remarks, below.
Continue reading "Upcoming Supreme Court case on GCA"
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (2)
NY Times -- a rather disgusting silence
Story in the NY Post. A native of NYC gets a posthumous Medal of Honor, the first such issued in the Afghan fighting ... and the NY Times declines to cover the story.
A Google search of news shows the story is covered by the AP, NY Sun, NY Post, Newsday, NY Daily News, newspapers in Hawaii, California, D.C., Pennsylvania, Colorado, and others. But not in the NY Times.
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
Free NRA membership for troops
NRA is offering complimentary one-year memberships for any active-duty military.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (1)
Ron Paul and gun rights
Reader Mechanic recommends Noel Gibeson's blogpost on Ron Paul and gun rights.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
A ... slight correction
Story here. ATF official announces 77 arrests in a gang sweep in Spokane, a roundup of "the worst, chronic offenders with ties to illegal firearms and violent crime."
Then spends two weeks evading reporters' questions. Because it turns out there were only 35 arrests, and they included ones for driving infractions and misdemeanors. Only one gun was seized in the "sweep."
"I guess he may have taken some liberties with how those numbers were represented," an ATF spokesman admitted.
Hat tip to Stephen P. Wenger...
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (5)
Second Amendment Carnival
The 13th edition of the Second Amendment Carnival is online.
Permalink · Festivals · Comments (0)
Clayton Cramer on the listserv debate re sophisticated collective rights
Clayton's take is here. He draws attention to one contributor's proclamation that the primary weapon against tyranny today is the IED, which of course equates our troops to the servants of tyranny.
The debate is indicative of how far the supporters of sophisticated collective right theory have to push the historical record. Apparently one of their claims is that the 1776 PA declaration of rights ("That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state...") is SCR, since it uses "themselves" instead of, I'd guess, "himself or herself".
That'd be awkward wording, of course. And a look at the 1776 PA Declaration shows that the framers regularly used "people," "they" and "their" to describe clearly individual rights:
"II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding...
XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments...
XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.
Firearm accidents over past decades
United Sportsmen of Florida has issued this release (small pdf) on the latest data on firearm accident rates.
Mail list debate over Saul Cornell's theories
I pasted, in extended remarks below, a long email list debate over Saul Cornell's variant of sophisticated collective rights.
Continue reading "Mail list debate over Saul Cornell's theories"
Supreme Court argument thru history
I was just reading David C. Frederick's book, "Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy," which I'd ordered to see if there were any tricks that I'd missed in 30+ years.
He begins with an interesting historical commentary. In the earliest Supreme Court, there were apparently no written briefs. The case was decided upon oral argument, which was sometimes presented over days by a team of attorneys (in one case, six attorneys on one side, who took seven days. 6-7 days was frequently the span. I'd guess teaming up was essential -- try speaking for a solid week, or a solid day, without your voice giving out).
Also in the early days, the docket was flexible. Attorney might have to travel in, so the argument could be held when they all arrive. But in 1830 the Court went with something like a modern docket: the next argument begins when this one ends. That created quite a burden, since you might arrive in DC and wait a week or two for the previous argument to end.
In 1795, the Court ordered counsel to provide a written summary of the "material points" of their case. In 1812, it limited arguing attorneys to two per side. In 1833 it recommended (it didn't order) submission of something closer to the modern brief. Eventually that led to argument being much shorter. Eventually it went to a two-hour per side limitation (its workload increasing from 98 cases in 1810 to 253 cases in 1850), which has now shrunk to a half hour per side..
While there are few records, indications are that in the early court the judges heard argument and didn't ask many questions. In the late 1940s, one experienced advocate counseled that attorneys presenting a one-hour argument should only have 40 minutes of argument, because the Justices asked so many questions. (Today, that'd be more like prepare five minutes of argument, and be thankful if you got it in, in several pieces, between questions). In the Steel Seizure Cases (1952), the Court allotted 3 hours per side, and the first argument got only one question, but the other did get grilled.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (2)
Transcript Supreme Court argument
It's here, in pdf. Argument centers around a treaty requirement that consulates be notified if their nationals are arrested, an important consideration being the power of the International Court of Justice to make a ruling, and how much that ruling obliges US courts to follow it in these circumstances (which I don't understand, but apparently the president did something to make it arguably binding).
As usual, it was less an argument than a grilling. Counsel for the petitioner seems rather underprepared. Watch the dynamics. CJ Roberts pins him on a hypothetical (if the ICJ not only made a finding, but ordered the violators imprisoned, would that also bind US courts?). The hypothetical interests Kennedy, whom Roberts is likely courting as a swing vote. The attorney can't come up with an answer, but Ginsburg tries a "save" by suggesting one. Again he gets stuck, and Breyer tries for a save. Alito comes in, and Kennedy and Roberts go back to tag-teaming him.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (3)
Support for gun laws dropping
An interesting post on polling data over the years. Support for gun laws took a significant hit right after 9/11.
Here's the polling data. Gallup notes that the spread between "we need stricter gun laws" and "we don't, or need less strict ones" was once around 60 points, fell to 14 points a year ago, and now stands at 4 points. On whether handguns should be banned, the "no" vote was 50% two decades ago, 68% today. The conclusion:
"Gun control has not surfaced as a major -- or even a minor -- issue thus far in the 2008 presidential campaign. The most that's been said is that the issue is hardly even being debated. The Gallup trends reviewed help to explain why. With public support for stricter gun laws waning after 9/11, the political climate for championing gun control is indeed different from when the Brady Bill was passed in 1993. Although half of Americans do say they favor stricter gun laws today, this is well below the 70% found in 1993. And when public attitudes about banning guns and enforcement are probed, there appears to be even less public demand for gun control."
More on Red's Trading Post
Story here. Back when they had paper records (as do most FFLs, since a computer program has to have ATF approval and few do), they were told to file 4473s for past years in alphabetical folders (i.e., 2006 -- all last names beginning with A) but have them in chron order inside the folder. That'd make a trace report a bit simpler, since bound books would give you the date of sale. Then a new ATF inspector came around and wrote them up on a violation notice for that, pointing out that the regs say you can put them in alphabetical order (sorting out all sales for an entire year) or chron order, but the regs say nothing about a mixture of the two systems.
Red's has since managed to lease an ATF-approved computer program and used that. Now the inspector has decided the system is inadequate because of how it handles lay-away sales.
The story illustrates how complex and often arbitrary the system governing licensed firearms dealers is. If you have an inspector who is decent and practical, life is simple. The same system overseen by an inspector who is a nit-picker, or has a grudge for you, can be impossible.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (8)
Great cover story on the presidential race
In Radar magazine.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Elk hunt, Colorado 10/20-24, at half price
Another Tucson attorney sent an email. He and a friend are booked for, but due to emergency cannot make, a rifle trophy elk hunt on private land out of Pagosa Springs,Colorado 10/20-24. One guide for two hunters, lodging, food, care and transport of elk etc. Stay at guide's ranch and travel via his truck onto private ranch land for the hunt. The guide reports an 85% success rate.
They've already paid half up front, and would offer the hunt to anyone who wants to pay the remaining $2750 (plus tags) per person. If anyone is interested, just email me and I'll pass it on.
"Goody Guns"
JPFO has the makings for them. I guess sending gun-shaped cookies to school would be an interesting test of "no tolerance" policies.
I remember a few years ago NRA had, and won, a case where a Virginia school required a kid to take off a T-shirt that had the letters NRA spelled out with images of competitive shooters, etc.. The questioning of the school's witnesses was fun, since they had to admit that they had the Virginia flag in the school, which shows an image of a woman (with one breast bared!) holding spears, as I recall. And an image of a fellow, presumably a tyrant, dead at her feet, thus depicting not merely weapons, but a homicide. And then there was the great seal of the United States, with an eagle holding arrows, the seals and flags of various military branches, etc. -- did they propose to ban those, too?
Debate in New Jersey
Blogger (and NRA Director) Scott Bach has postings criticizing New Jersey officials' claims that their rising homicide rate must be due to the less restrictive laws of nearby Pennsylvania.
In response, the head of CeaseFire New Jersey posted this, claiming that NJ criminals can hire straw men to buy in bulk in PA.
Scott in turn responded here.
Looks like a nice debate starting -- you might want to weigh in on the comments.
NRO on DC arguments in Parker
Article here. "Just Stand There While I Die / The D.C. government has that right, and exercises it frequently."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
The sound of silence...
A gunman goes on rampage, kills six.
We hear from the Brady Campaign, which might be expect to cite the case, or at least post a press release expressing their condolences... the sound of silence. Their lead item is still a posting about "God Not Guns Sabbath," held over a week ago. Strange, when there were far smaller shootings in Philadephia and Salt Lake City months ago, they were quick to proclaim "What a disturbed teenager in Utah and a tormented businessman in Pennsylvania have in common is that they had access to guns....We join with our Brady members and Million Mom March Chapters in Utah and Pennsylvania and across America in offering our heartfelt condolences to the families of those that have been lost." When two men were killed in Greenwich Village, they announced "Our hearts and condolences go out to the families of the victims of the terrible shooting in Greenwich Village."
The same sound prevails at the Violence Policy Center. And at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Of course, in the case they ignore the shooter was a law enforcement officer, so his victims wouldn't serve their policy agenda. But we'd have to be awfully cynical to believe that advancing a political agenda has anything to do expression of condolence, I suppose.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (15)
Fed. court voids law forbidding employers to ban guns in parking lots
The Tulsa World a federal court struck a pro-gun State measure. OK passed a law forbidding employers to ban guns in locked cars in their parking lots. ConocoPhillips and some others sued in federal court to strike it. The federal district court bought their argument that the state law conflicted with the federal 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires employers to minimize workplace risks.
Hat tip to Joe Olson.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (16)
Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC
Leibowitz's Canticle has revealed that Brady Campaign admits it tried to talk DC into amending its gun law, in order to moot the Parker appeal. (Scroll down on that page, I can't find a way to link to the specific post).
"Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal. A broad Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment could jeopardize a variety of laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and California's machine gun ban, he said."
This bears out what I'd said to some friends a way back -- if you think some of the pro-gun side are worried about the Parker outcome, I'd wager that many of the anti-gun side are absolutely terrified of it! Litigation is always a roll of the dice, the only question is whether you like the odds, and our odds are good. They have far more at risk; right now in court the 2nd amendment is a reality only in DC and in the 5th Circuit (Tex., La, one other state, I think) and about everywhere else for courtroom purposes, the 2nd A. is no protection at all.
They might not even be able to win by winning. A ruling the other way will fire up the gun movement, perhaps resulting in a pro-gun White House, which (given the ages of the Supremes) might mean as many as four new appointments that might eventually rolling things back. From their standpoint, they have everything on the table, bad odds, and a risk of a bad longterm outcome even were they to win.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
Trouble over CN gun permit
Story here. Basically, a fellow had a gun permit (I'm assuming CCW was covered), someone sees his gun while he's dining, calls police, who for some squirrelly reason arrest him under the "disorderly conduct" catch-all. His permit is revoked.
Charges are quickly dropped -- but then he's told that it will take until May 2009 to get his permit restored! The story also notes that a member of the state Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, has filed his own suit, because he was told that his permit can't be renewed until November 2008.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Back from SAF gun rights conference
Got off the plane late yesterday, no time to give details, but the conference was great. A few high points:
John Lott gave a presentation on the practical end of gun control and promoted several of his books. I read his book "Straight Shooting" on the flight back, and it is GREAT! It's a compendium of his articles arguing that gun control doesn't work. Brief and to the point, and every chapter hits hard. Example: he points out that the homicide rate in Baghdad, where we let everyone except insurgents have a full auto AK-47 in their home or business, is lower than that of DC, where guns are tightly controlled. (And he has a followup article rebutting claims that Baghdad has more homicides, pointing out that the MSM who carried that story used stats that included in the Iragi homicides insurgents killed by the US, people killed in car crashes, etc., basically all deaths other than disease). I know I probably got the city's spelling wrong, no time now to correct it.
Don Kates said he thought Parker would go our way, and very likely by more than 5-4, but probably in a fragmented decision, a plurality maybe with concurrences giving it the necessary majority, and with concurrences going all over the place in suggesting what is the right legal test and how far the right goes.
Parker plaintiffs file response to petition
It's here, in pdf.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
"The Liberals' Lament"
Prof. Jonathan Turley, in USA Today:
"This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups."
What I've always found interesting is -- why is the 2nd Amendment considered a conservative issue, and gun control a liberal one? I have some theories which I am exploring. One is simply social and has nothing to do with logic. Liberals are less likely than conservatives to come from socio-economic groups that use or like guns. But why would that override consistency? (Esp. when it comes from persons who think (1) Bush is an incipient Hitler, we are tipping to a police state yet (2) the government should have the power to disarm the populace)?
Hat tip to Dan Gifford, Joe Olson, and many others who emailed me today on this...
SAF Gun Rights Policy Conference
Here's the agenda. It's this Friday-Sunday, in the KY suburbs south of Cincinatti. Just received word that Ron Paul will be giving a speech at the Saturday evening reception.
UPDATE: admission is free!
New article on gun confiscation and genocide
Human Rights and Gun Confiscation,” David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, 26 Quinnipiac Law Review (No. 2, 2008, forthcoming, draft) explores the effects of gun confiscation in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. Available here, in pdf. (Large file).
(Note: it's on Dave Kopel's server, and as of this moment (noon, MST) the server is down).
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (0)
Take on HR 2640
Military.com has this take on HR 2640, the bill relating to mental records and NICS.
Attorney Ev Nappen, whose pro-gun credentials are as solid as can be, has the same take.
I've read the complex bill, and see it as a help. (1) It doesn't add anyone to the prohibited person list who isn't already there. (2) At most, it increases the number of names in the list, which isn't a good thing, but since it's already a felony for those folks to possess a gun, it's hard to see how letting them get a gun, and then be subject to prosecution, is a good idea. This way they at least get alerted. (3) Most importantly, it lets people on the list for a mental committent get off the list, and has pretty broad standards for letting them do it. Right now, if a person has EVER been committed to an institution, they are barred for life. There's no restoration of rights, or even pardon, such as we have in the area of a felony conviction. I know two people who are in that position, committed for a few days many years ago, thoroughly upstanding and stable people today -- but without something like this, they're barred for life.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Rudy overdoing it a bit
From the Wall Street Journal Online:
"The fact is that people inside the Giuliani campaign are appalled at the number of times their candidate has felt compelled to interrupt public appearances to take calls from his wife. The estimate from those in a position to know is that he has taken such calls more than 40 times in the middle of speeches, conferences and presentations to large donors."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
SAF's Gun Rights Policy Conference this weekend
Second Amendment Fdn and Citizen's Committee will be holding its annual conference this coming weekend, in the KY suburbs of Cincinatti. I'm going! So is Dave Kopel, Bob Levy and Alan Gura (the Parker attorneys), John Lott, Clayton Cramer, and quite a few others.
Question for Atty Gen Nominee
Bob Levy asks. where does AG nominee Michael Mukasey stand on the Second Amendment?
Great headline
From, appropriately, the Bangkok Post. Great last words, too.