« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
November 2007
Kozinski becomes chief judge of the 9th Circuit
And Carl Tobias has a commentary.
"Still, the "conservative" label does not quite capture Kozinski's jurisprudential views. He has said that a conservative president appointed him and that he tends "to have conservative instincts" but also believes strongly "in important principles of freedom" -- freedom of speech, religion and personal privacy. He once famously explained the 9th Circuit's judicial independence by remarking that its judges were three time zones away from the Supreme Court and the nation's capital.
Stories abound. Kozinski often writes 50 drafts of opinions, working 80-hour weeks alongside his clerks, whom he sends 3 a.m. e-mails. Forty of his clerks have gone on to become Supreme Court clerks."
GoA opposing Sullivan nomination for head of ATF
Red's Trading Post has the story.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
Going too far
Now, lots of folks don't like red-light cameras, but this is going too far!
List of people barred by mental treatment doubles in size
FBI reports the list has more than doubled in size, from 175,000 to 400,000.
This sorta thing is why I didn't take umbrage at the bill proposed a while back to change things. It didn't add anyone to the prohibited persons list. It would have expanded the number of names on the list, but anyone who had been committed but was able to get a firearm because they weren't on the list would be liable for a felony charge anyway. It did give people on the list a way to get off, for the first time. A person convicted of a felony can in most states get his firearm rights restored after passage of time -- but there is no such procedure for a person who has had a mental committment. They're barred for life, period. I judged changing that would be worth having more names on the list, when everybody being added was already barred and would be set up for a felony charge anyway.
UPDATE: originally, the Fed rule was once a felon, always one, no matter what State law provided. Then the 1986 amendments to GCA changed that, and allowed State restorations of rights to restore Federal rights as well. (Exact execution depends on State law -- in AZ it was originally automatic, then gun rights took a separate motion (while other civil rights were restored automatically), then the legislature put in a detailed system where the person must wait so many years if it was some classes of offense, a longer time if it was in certain classes, and never if it was a really serious offense).
There's some area of dispute (for example, some States have "expungement" of records that doesn't really expunge them -- they're still on record and can be used to prove a second offense -- does that count as expungement of the conviction?)
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (6)
Harvard Crimson: Repeal the Second Amendment
Editorial, via Instapundit, here.
I'll merely take on the first paragraph.
"Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice,"
Actually, the minutemen were but a tiny part of the militia that fought in those days.
" the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own safety and stability."
The use of "no doubt" suggests that the authors are completely unaware of the Second Amendment's history.
"But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe,"
Yep. They don't even understand that a major part of the push for a Second Amendment centered on fears of just that security force! I guess they've never heard of Madison's Federalist 46. Or perhaps of Madison.
"the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful."
That line is explained by their historical ignorance.
"Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy,"
I.e., enacting gun controls that do no good.
"and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation."
Nuanced? That's SO 2004! Why should any criminal law be "nuanced?" In that setting, "nuanced" means "void for vagueness."
Permalink · media · Comments (13)
Taking politics way too seriously
Some whack job just ran into a HIllary campaign office claiming he has a bomb strapped to his chest.
If police sharpshooters get the right setting, he may become quite literally a whack job.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
EU pressuring Finland on its gun laws
The BBC reports the Euro Parliament has voted to raise the age for buying guns to 18, to tighten registration, and to outlaw blank firing guns that can be coverted to fire regular ammo.
Here's Deutsche Welle's report.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
American Thinker on the militia
Permalink · militia · Comments (11)
Ark. AG supports Parker/Heller plaintiffs
He says sign onto a brief for state attorneys general in the case. The Texas AG has the lead on it.
UPDATE: What can you do about it? Call or write your AG. They're directly elected in every state I can think of. You're their constituent and voter.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (8)
New edition of David E. Young's book
Webpage here. I can tell you that his original "The Origin of the Second Amendment" was a breathtaking work of research. Which may explain why the Emerson court cited it over a hundred times!
I've been permitted to see the page proofs for his upcoming second book, which will be out in mid-December, entitled "The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms," and it is a stunning work, with many expansions on the first.
Online petition for fair treatment of FFLs
Here. It was created by Red's Trading Post, already has over 5,000 names. And he's figured out how to make a practical use of it, by emailing it to his Congressional delegation.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
A likely typo
From a Op-Ed by liberal-left Naomi Wolf, in the Washington Post:
"Is America still America if millions of us no longer know how democracy works?
.....
In recent years, the trend away from teaching democracy to young Americans has been at least partly a consequence of the trend of teaching to the standardized tests introduced by the Bush administration. ...
Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world..."
I'd agree with that, but given the writer's political stance, I suspect she meant the Fourth Amendment,
UPDATE: Instapundit has a throughly tongue-in-cheek commentary:
"A couple of readers think that Naomi Wolf meant the Fourth Amendment, not the Second, but I'm sure they're wrong. First, she's writing about Constitutional ignorance, so I'm sure she took time to review the Bill of Rights herself. Second, if she had made that kind of error, one of the layers of editors at the Post would have caught it. Third, her statement is correct on the merits."
As he would say, Ouch!
Amusing email
Reader Matthew Carmel shared an email he sent to the head of Getting Out and Staying Out, a program that advocates for criminal defendants, and then if they get time plans for their release with education, etc. For some reason, however, they refused Mr. Carmel's request:
"I read about your organization Getting Out and Staying Out in today's WSJ and thought your group might be an appropriate resource to locate a potential speaker.
I am a Second Amendment activist and part-time NRA instructor. I recognize you may hold views regarding legal firearm ownership and the Second Amendment very different from my own. However, the general premise upon which my search relies is that gun control laws have very little effect upon criminal behavior and attitudes. Criminals intent on engaging in crime will always have access to firearms and any controls simply restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Perhaps you personally disagree with this premise but if one wishes to be intellectually honest, the public should have an opportunity to listen to the voice of the criminals themselves. And this brings me to the reason for my correspondence.
I would like to locate a repentant individual who has a prior criminal conviction involving the illegal use and possession of firearms. No doubt you have come across speakers who are former alcoholics that lecture to teenagers on the dangers of driving while under the influence, former drug addicts that try to scare kids straight, former computer hackers that become industry consultants, etc. I have personally attended a lecture by a former Palestinian terrorist, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee here in New Jersey, where he discusses his crimes against Jews in Israel. I am pursuing a similar theme, namely, a former criminal who can honestly share his views regarding the effectiveness or lack thereof, of gun control in mitigating illegal use of firearms. His views on how he would reduce criminal behavior would especially be of interest.
While I cannot offer any speaking fees, there perhaps may be a way for the right individual who is well spoken and presentable to parlay any experience gained by this early exposure into paid speaking engagements. If you are willing to help me in my search, without regard to any personal viewpoints, it would be most welcome.
Sincerely,
Matt Carmel
================================================
Matthew M. Carmel, NRA Certified Instructor
Constitution Arms - Handgun Training and Sales
Huckabee gets an endorsement
Mike Huckabee got the endorsement of the Republican Sportshooters Committee. The fellow has pretty impressive gunnie credentials; doesn't seem to have enough backing to get the nomination (the media having already decided that the primaries are Guliani vs. Romney and Hillary vs. Obama), but might have a shot at VP.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
Response to editorial column
And a good one. Let's see... the column says the solution is more gun laws, because locking up people who criminally assault others with guns would overcrowd the jails?
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
"Guns are for liberals, too!"
A column in the Univ. of Michigan student paper.
Hat tip to Joe Olson...
John M Browning Day?
Mike Adams proposes a new holiday: John M. Browning Day.
I didn't Browning designed the Model 94 Winchester...
Parker and political campaigns
A column by Ken Blackwell.
"Presidential candidates whose views on the Second Amendment have been questioned should step up and detail their position on this issue. Mrs. Clinton, and Messrs. Obama and Edwards should explain their views. Mr. Giuliani should explain more fully why he opposes the D.C. gun ban but supports other restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
The American people expect leadership. Part of being a leader is answering the tough questions openly and forthrightly. On this issue, the court will do the heavy lifting. The candidates’ views, however, will certainly leave a mark."
Update: Alphecca has a related thought: the Repubs ought to use this as a wedge issue -- but if Rudy or Mitt win the nomination, that's going to be unlikely. (Via Instapundit).
Update, also via Instapundit: Prof. Sandy Levinson has similar thoughts.
"What is interesting is that almost none of the leading candidates in either party, right now, seems particularly "authentic" holding a gun. Any such picture of Hillary or Obama holding a gun would instantly become the "Michael Dukakis in the tank" photograph of 2007. Edwards, perhaps, has actually hunted and might not look ridiculous. Romney has been exposed as an utter fraud re his devotion to hunting, and somehow I doubt that Giuliani, who might well wish to shoot his critics dead (though he might prefer to personally strangle them), has in fact spent much time actually using guns. Perhaps Huckabee has done his share of hunting in the Arkansas pines (or wherever one goes hunting in Arkansas)."
He later adds--Fred Thompson is an exception.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
Parker: standing issue
No decision from the Supremes today on whether to take the cross-petition in Parker/Heller. That's the one where plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of plaintiffs other than Heller, on grounds of standing to sue. ScotusBlog speculates (which is all we can do) that the Supremes may just hold onto the cross petition until after they rule on the Second Amendment itself.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (1)
Gun blogger on Fred Thomspon steering committee
Gun blogger and author Michael Bane is on the newly formed steering committee of Sportsmen for Fred Thompson.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (1)
I like Fred Thompson more by the minute
Now he's wandering around gun shows, and wishing he had more time and money to spend there.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (9)
Incredible....
From KIDK, in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Deputy comes to house, tells homeowner there's been a complaint about his dog biting someone, demands that he produce it so it can be shot, when asked for proof says he doesn't need it, and proceeds to shoot the dog three times with a rifle, in front of wife and 3 year old kid, and then leaves.
Fortunately, his professionalism was equal to his markmanship, and tho badly wounded, the dog lives.
For first year Torts class: how many torts were committed here?
For Trial Practice: what persuasive arguments can be used to keep punitive damages to under, say, $100,000?
Question for trial judge: how do you explain to the jury that this is a civil case, not a criminal one, so they have to take the part about lethal injection out of their verdict form?
Brady Campaign getting a bit antisemitic?
Go to their webpage and look at the animation of Judge Silberman (author of the Circuit opinion that struck down the handgun ban).
Not so long ago, NRA took heat for using an image of an octopus which, the media assured all, was a symbol used by the Nazis. I rather doubt the media have the same interest in Brady using a caricature that Goebbels would have had autographed and framed.
Continue reading "Brady Campaign getting a bit antisemitic?"
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (15)
Parker/Heller roundup
I can't recall a case getting this much coverage at the cert. stage. Or at the merits briefing state, either. Usually a Supreme Court case is ignored until the Court rules (and often even after that: in a Term the Court takes about 80 cases, but upwards of 70 are not very sexy). But...
Here's today's Wall St. Journal editorial.
Michigan Atty General Mike Cox weights in with textual argument.
Here's a pretty good general article on the case.
And here's the Brady Campaign press release, calling the Circuit ruling "judicial activism at its worst." Further proof that, in many cases, "judicial activism" amounts to "striking down a law I wanted upheld."
The Harvard Law Bulletin reports that Prof. Mark Tushnet thinks DC may win, while Prof. Larry Tribe thinks the plaintiffs will. It quotes Prof. Tribe, who came over to the individual rights view: “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”"
And we shouldn't neglect academia. Here's Nelson Lund's latest, refuting the argument that since the amendment relates to the militia, and handguns are supposedly not militia weapons, they can be banned.
The case not only has its own webpage and blog, it has its own Wikipedia entry, which people are keeping up to date.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
Robbery with a gun... a stapler gun
Story here.
"Petrella said the stapler's chrome finish could have made it look like a gun "if someone didn't get a good look at it.""
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (2)
"Ban the BB Gun Menace"
In Great Britain. Actually, the description -- plastic gun and pellets -- sounds more like the deadly AirSoft guns.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (5)
Happy T'giving!
Thought for the day: the Europeans introduced the Indians to alcohol and smallpox; the Indians introduced the Europeans to tobacco and syphilis.
The world's first great intercultural exchange, and a harbinger for all future ones....
Academics for the Second Amendment seeking donations for brief, part two
Academics now has a webpage up with a Paypal donations button.
Parker oral argument
SCOTUSBlog is reporting that Parker is likely to be set for oral argument the week of March 17.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (10)
Prof. Glenn Reynolds on Parker
Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) has a column on the case in the NY Post.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (0)
Press conference on Parker
Video here. Excellently done. Everyone says their piece, short and concise, and that's it. We look forward to the fight, and this is why we brought the case.
The opposition speakers are stiff, often apologetic -- DC "had no choice" but to continue with the appeal, it's a "bittersweet moment," if the suit hadn't come over this law it would have come under some other law... only the last speaker bothers to say he thinks they'll win.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
Academics for the Second Amendment seeking donations for brief
I've put the full msg. in extended remarks below. A2A is a small group -- legal academics who support the second amendment aren't a majority! The costs of an amicus are considerable (just the printing, and Sup. Ct. briefs must be printed) run into the thousands.
Continue reading "Academics for the Second Amendment seeking donations for brief"
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (12)
Thoughts on Parker's questions presented
The Supreme Court obviously wanted to be very precise. That likely explains why it skipped announcing last week, they had to work on it, perhaps negotiations between Justices on the precise wording. I suspect the wording is the result of a lot of careful thinking.
The reference to "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia..." is good. Implicit in that is that the old collective right theory (that Second Amendment rights are rights of states only) is off the table. We're down to sophisticated collective rights vs. individual rights. And I might even venture a guess that the Court is showing favor for individual rights here. The sentence presupposes that there are "Second Amendment rights of individuals." There's no "if any" language in there. Read literally, it presupposes that individuals not in such a militia do have second amendment rights... the only question is whether the laws violate those rights. But that may be reading too much into the wording... then again, it was probably the result of some careful thinking, and negotiation.
"with any state-regulated militia" is interesting. It seems to dodge the question of how "well regulated" a militia would have to be if sophisticated collective rights view were taken. That'd be a legal mess -- just how much organization, how many drills a year would you need? The early federal militia acts, and the debates over them, suggest that "well-regulated" didn't require a lot, and the Congress recognized that full-time farmers and tradesmen couldn't spare a lot of time.
Inclusion of the functional firearm ban -- again, good. Perhaps even a slap at DC's petition, which had insisted that that question was not in line, and then rather dishonestly defended the handgun ban by saying residents were still allowed to defend themselves with rifles and shotguns.
Inclusion of its carrying permit issue -- that'd give me a bit of heartburn, but the Court made it clear the issue centers on "keep[ing] handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes..." That narrows it: it's only on whether the carrying restrictions, as applied to "carrying" in your own home, are constitutional.
Still gives a bit of worry, to the extent that the Court *might* thereby say something about carry permits generally. Then again, even were it to say something approving here, we'd still be far better off than we are now, when the only barrier to open carry permits is legislative: I can't recall any court striking one down, so if your state doesn't have such, it's because the voters won't let it be.
Overall, I'd say the rewording is a good sign.
By the way, on timing:
Petitioner's brief, that of DC, is due 45 days from the grant, or January 4 by my count.
Parker side's brief is due 30 days after that, or about February 3.
DC has 30 days to reply, or around March 5.
The Court is now booking arguments for March, so I'd guess an argument in late March.
UPDATE: No, it's not usual for the Court to write the questions presented on its own. Questions presented are right at the front of the petition and response, so that the Court can quickly see just what the issue is. Usually a cert. grant is simply cert. granted. Occasionally, where several questions are presented, you may see cert. granted as to this question but not as to the others. But a complete rewrite is in my research quite unusual. I haven't researched enough to know whether it's extremely rare or just quite unusual, but it's one or the other.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (10)
Cert granted in Parker!!!!!
Order here.
Court rephrased the question presented as:
"Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes? "
DC had phrased it as:
"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of
Columbia from banning private possession of handguns
while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."
Parker/Heller had phrased it as:
" Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-
abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes."
7-2502 is the registration requirement. 2502.02 is the ban. 22-4504 is the pistol carry permit, which was construed to cover moving of a firearm within the home. 2507.2 is the "functional firearm" ban. Inclusion of the last in the grant is, I think, a good sign for Parker/Heller. They wanted it included, but DC insisted it hadn't filed for cert. on the issue. Well, the Court took care of that.
UPDATE: here's the Brady Campaign press release.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (22)
Phila. Daily News
An editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News asks, "WHAT WILL it take to bring our Harrisburg lawmakers to their senses, to break them out of the National Rifle Association's hypnotic trance and pass the handgun laws we so desperately need? A splash of cold water to their faces? A sustained high-decibel scream? A sharp snap of the fingers?"
How about a demonstration that the gun laws the News is pushing will work, or have worked anywhere else? Strangely, the editorial entirely neglects that detail.
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
Bloomberg being sued
Story here. Bob Barr, as attorney for two of the gun dealers Bloomberg sued, counter-sued in local courts for defamation; the courts just denied Bloomberg's motion to dismiss and ordered him to sit for a deposition.
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (3)
Response in Philadelphia
A letter to the editor responding to an editorial. In response to the killing of an officer, apparently an earlier editorial (1) laughed off mandatory sentencing for people who shoot LEOs as "feel good" legislation and (2) suggested one-gun-a-month as a real solution!
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (0)
Boston has a cunning plan
As Balderick says. Story here. The plan is that police will go in groups to houses where they think juveniles might have guns, and seek parents' permission for a consent search. If they do find a gun, they'll seize but not bring charges. If drugs are found, they may or may not file charges. It's based on a St. Louis program where 98% of people consented to the search.
May as well get rid of the 4th Amendment, too, I suppose. Of course my juveniles own guns. Legally. It does strike me as strange -- or maybe this is the way Boston really is -- that a parent whose juvenile owns an illegal gun or drugs has to call in police to take them away.
UPDATE: Yeah, I know consent searches are outside the 4th. I'm referring more to its spirit -- don't search without a good reason, and esp. don't search residences without a very good one.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (15)
Glenn Reynolds vs. Adam Winkler on "reasonable regulation"
Some months ago, Prof. Adam Winkler of UCLA published Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, arguing that even with an individual right, almost all gun control measures would pass muster: review would generally be rational basis, and most would pass even strict scrutiny. He relies largely upon State case law.
Prof. Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds of U. Tenn. has responded with Guns and Gay Sex: Some Notes on Firearms, the Second Amendment, and "Reasonable Regulation.". Reynolds argues that Winkler overlooked a significant line of case law that held keeping arms was an absolute right, while bearing them was subject to regulation (and later case law interpreted keeping to include much carrying, as well). He goes on to suggest that if courts merely took the expressly-guaranteed right to arms as seriously as they take gay sex, which has no such guarantee, they would have to conclude that reasonable regulation was very narrow indeed. If they do not, then their credibility will be seriously damaged: it would be apparent that the interpretation was driven by the desired outcome.
Kopel article on disarmament and murder in Uganda
At Reason Online. "Guns Don't Kill People, Gun Control Kills People / Uganda terrorizes its own citizens under the auspices of UN gun control mandate."
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (0)
Talking with an old friend
I had breakfast today with an old friend from my DC days. He related an interesting case. DC is condemning property to build a new stadium. One of the most difficult cases involves a guy who runs a number of gay porn shops in an out of the way, seedy, area. They offered him new, prime, property, readily accessible, and he declined. He explained that some of his clientele includes high government employees and officials and businessmen and such, and they obviously don't want to be seen entered his establishments, so he wants some isolated, perhaps seedy, area. I suppose in all businesses the key is location, location, location!
Then on the way back the little battery symbol on the dashboard lit up. There went the alternator! Had to get that and the battery replaced, but at least it kept going until I got to the shop.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (1)
Trouble brewing in PA
Governor Rendell is on a push again.
UPDATE: A call for attendance at the hearing. It's Tuesday, 10 AM.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
NPR blog
Over at the NPR blog, they're discussing Richard Feldman's new book, Ricochet, which criticizes NRA. Since the NPR blogger begins with the statement she first learned about NRA from Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you can figure where it's going.
But I found one comment quite fascinating:
"My father quit the NRA despite being president of Savage Arms, a respected firearms manufacturers. He and industry peers founded SAAMI, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Institute, so they could help write the 1968 gun control act in spite of the NRA's hysterical oppositon."
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (15)
Assn of former ATF agents
From Red's Trading Post comes a report of an association of former ATF agents.
It might be an interesting group. From my observation, ATF has a wide span of agents. I mean, there would be two reasons to join: you like to work around guns, or you hate guns. My contact with ATF in my immediate area has all been good. Inspectors and enforcement that they import from elsewhere -- not good at all. Historically, some offices are good, some are antigun, some honest, some are corrupt.
In my gov't experience, Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement was much the same. Most offices just did their job. Some could get totally out of control. Problem during my stint was that high level managment covered for and sometimes encouraged the latter (I hope that it's changed during the intervening 15 years, but have no data). I think ATF has a similar problem: the high level doesn't sweat about the corrupt or oppressive offices, nor reward the ones that worry about criminals and ignore everyone else.
While I'm on an ex-bureaucrat's roll (and any thinking person who has been a bureaucrat has become at least a small l libertarian): there is actually a MAJOR disincentive for a federale to worry about real problems.
The criteria for being promoting are essentially that you are spending a lot of time on complex issues. Now, making a felon in possession case, of a real street criminal, gang shooter, whatever, is a social good. BUT it's not very complex, is it? Check with local cops, find guys arrested for CCW or whatever who have a felony rap, paraphrase their report, submit to the US attorney. Child's play. So forget about getting promotions. Nevermind that almost everyone would agree that you're doing a good job and creating social good. Cook up a complicated case against an FFL -- get a promotion.
So why not promote the good guys anyway? Because the Office of Personnel Managment every now and then audits an agency, trying to catch them doing that, and if a sufficient number of people have been promoted despite doing non-complex cases, it dings the agency and cuts back on how many higher-level slots it is allowed to have.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
Study of racist roots of gun control
From GeorgiaCarry.org comes "Disarm the Negro: the Racist Roots of Georgia Gun Control" (pdf file). Very interesting data on the 1906 Atlanta race riots, where mobs attacked black neighborhoods, the residents fought back (in an early form of straw man sales, light skinned residents bought guns for their neighbors), and police and the state militia responded with house to house searches for guns. The Atlanta Journal ran an editorial entitled "Disarm the Negroes," endorsing the searches with comments such as "Should a collision between the races occur, it would be too late to deplore the fact that the negroes had been permitted to arm themselves." The study also probes why GA law bans carrying at public assemblies, and notes the law was enacted after night riders attacked blacks who were travelling to a ... public assembly, and they fought back.
It also shows how newspapers cheered that fact that facially race-neutral handgun permit laws had been enacted, because they were being applied so as to selectively disarm black citizens.
Permalink · 14th Amendment · Comments (10)
A whole new meaning to "flight risk"
Man eaten by gator while fleeing police.
Bob Levy article on Parker
In the LA Times, no less.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (11)
Article on new ATFE Director
Sounds like they got a loo-loo.
In the old days, the agency just promoted somebody from the liquor side of the agency to hold the job and get his "high three" in before retirement. They usually did little good and little bad. This time it sounds like the Admin. brought in the archtypical political hack. On the other hand, this IS the Boston Globe, and the comments suggest another side to the story.
Hat tip to Red's Trading Post.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (0)
Last surviving WWI vets
Via Instapundit comes this story. A total of three WWI vets survive. The story focuses on Frank Buckles, the one who sent to France, is 106 years old, and drove a tractor until he was 104. (And back in 1917, lied about his age in order to enlist).
Here's another story about a vet who died two years ago, age 113. He was a black American, and his parents had been slaves (and must have been long-lived themselves, since his father was born in the 1830s. Gad, to be alive in the 21st century, and have fought in WWI, born in the 19th century, and have had parents who'd been slaves. He'd have been born when Banjamin Harrison sat in the White House, and his father's life might have overlapped with that of James Madison.
How not to loosen a lug nut...
Now, a stuck lug nut can sometimes be loosened by impact. But blasting it with a shotgun while you stand next to the wheel is generally not recommended.
Court watching...
Today's the day when the Supremes will probably announce cert. on Parker. Emphasis on "probably," since they make decisions when they want to.
UPDATE: a comment points out this entry on ScotusBlog, which says the Court made no mention of the case in today's orders. As it notes, this can mean almost anything.
Nothing: the Court wants just more time to think it over.
It means to grant cert, and wants to refine the questions it will pose in a cert. grant, which defines what the parties must brief.
Or the vote was to deny cert., and some Justices want time to write dissents from the denial.
So it can be a good sign, a bad sign, or no sign. And nobody but the Court knows.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
Assault cars?
Maddened Fowl has some interesting postings on automobiles being used in slayings and mass slayings. (skim down on the page). Crackhead crashes car into crowd, 40 injured, a dragster goes out of control and kills six, "With today's high performance assault cars, there are many deaths & more injured..."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (3)
More on "assault rifles," Brady, and officer slayings
Snowflakes in Hell has further analysis of data on the question. As I'd noted a bit earlier, rifles of any type were involved in a small minority of LEO killings. He looks deeper into the data -- which doesn't give weapon type, but does give caliber -- and notes that in 2006, chamberings associated with "assault guns" were involved in a total of four LEO deaths. Since these chamberings are also used in rifles that aren't within most definitions of "assault rifles," the actual number may be lower. The most we can say is that in 2006, two years after the "assault rifle" ban expired, it is likely that the number used in LEO slayings was 0-4.
No wonder the CNN article, the newspaper piece, and the Brady Campaign claims that police are faced with a wave of AW attacks didn't quote any figures....
Permalink · media · Comments (7)
Ward Churchill on defending academic fraud
Honestly, I don't think you could make this stuff up. Ward Churchill speaking on Michael Bellesiles:
"Consider the case of Michael Bellesiles, the young historian at Emory who wrote Arming America, a study devoted to debunking many of the more cherished myths of the country's thriving gun culture (for which he won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2000). It wasn't other academics who went after Bellesiles, but the National Rifle Association, which commenced a campaign alleging "academic fraud" even before the book was published (there were nearly 250 national articles published on the "Bellesiles Hoax" in less than two years). Ultimately, the "fraud" claim hinged on a single footnote in which Bellesiles gave the wrong archival location for certain documents he cited to demonstrate that gun ownership in early America was much less common than those of the NRA persuasion-which, by the way, includes me-would have it. The documents actually existed, and they said pretty much what Bellesiles said they said. Nonetheless, in the face of an unrelenting barrage of negative publicity-the NRA was able to orchestrate nearly 250 articles on the "Bellesiles Hoax" in less than two years-a panel of "impartial" scholars commissioned by Emory to "investigate the integrity of Professor Bellesiles' scholarship" concluded that in this instance his handling of data was "less than professional." On that basis, although the university tried to put a happy face on the situation by allowing him to "resign," Bellesiles was effectively fired. Once again, the performance of the left was something less than exemplary. Although there were a few progressive scholars who publicly defended Bellesiles-Gary Wills comes to mind-I can name none who expressed a sense of outrage that their colleagues on the left weren't joining in."
I can't see one statement of fact (other than that Bellesiles published a book) that isn't utterly false. Well, one is only misleading. He did get the Bancroft Prize ... but it got revoked.
Opinion on teacher's suit
In pdf, here. The court rules against the teacher's interesting argument that the state pre-emption statute, which forbids local units to pass gun-related "ordinances," bars the school district's employment policy that teachers cannot pack. The court rules that a policy of this type is not within the ordinary meaning of "ordinance," is known to and applies only to teachers, who take their jobs subject to it.
Here's her attorney's webpage on the case, with pleadings.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (13)
Unpublished opinion re: State Guards
I found an interesting unpublished 6th Circuit decision. The 6th has long been a "collective rights" circuit. This ruling dealt with a fellow who had unlicensed full autos, but was a member of the State Guard, a State-organized group designed to augment the National Guard, and subject to activation by the governor. Members of the State Guard are (at least when not activated) expected to provide their own firearms, and given three days annual trainng by the Guard.
Defendant testified that after 9/11 he became concerned that the State Guard was under-armed, and so he assembled some full autos for their use, and sometimes trained his unit with them.
OK, you can see where this is going to cause heartburn for a "collective right" approach. The fellow actually is a member of a State organized militia, and testifies that he prepared arms for them. But the court upholds his conviction, adopting a test from the 10th Circuit: a defendant "must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is "well regulated" by the state; (3) machineguns are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the machinegun was reasonably connected to his militia service." The court essentially rules that since the State Guard can be armed by the State when activated, and the governor *probably* would do that, ownership of the guns was not reasonably related to its purposes. Nevermind the question of training before being activated, or that the governor might find it convenient for the units to have their own equipment.
Hat tip to Mad Duck.
Continue reading "Unpublished opinion re: State Guards"
Permalink · collective right · Comments (17)
Houston Chronicle on Parker case
Article here.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
"Don't mess with the sportsmen"
That's Scott Bach's suggestion to politicians, based on races in, of all places, New Jersey.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
DC government....
A modest problem: two government employees got arrested for embezzling $16,000,000 from the city before they were caught. And this is, by most accounts, one of the best run departments in the city government.
What if we applied the claims to other Bill of Rights guarantees?
A student here at the Univ. of Arizona has some interesting thoughts, reproduced in extended remarks.
[Hat tip to Joe Olson]
Continue reading "What if we applied the claims to other Bill of Rights guarantees?"
CNN and media touting Brady Campaign story on assault rifles
CNN runs a special on how police are under fire due to expiration of the "assault gun ban." "Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."
Now the Baltimore Sun comes in with "The IACP reissued its call for a ban in September, noting a 59 percent increase in the number of law enforcement officers shot and killed this year compared with 2006....The group attributed the spike in police deaths to an increase in violent crime, the availability of guns and the absence of an assault weapons ban." I won't go into how misleading these pieces are (including quoting rates of fire for full auto weapons, and referring to former Soviet bloc guns flooding the streets) but it's immediately noticeable that when it comes to the core of the story ... officers being shot with "assault rifles" ... there are no figures given in either.
Here's a chart of LEOs killed feloniously (which is about the only way it can be done) in the line of duty, 1972-2006.
The worst point was 1973, 134 officers killed -- nearly twice the level that CNN and Brady call a "record." Throughout the 70s, the level remained about a hundred per year. In 1993, BEFORE the assault gun ban, it had declined to 70 per year. The same in 1994, first year of the ban. For the ten years of the ban, it see-sawed, mostly in the 50s and 60s. 2004, as the ban ends, it was at 57.
But if we're talking assault rifles, maybe we ought to look at that specifically. Unfortunately, I can't find any breakdown for that (because there is no real definition of assault rifle in semiauto form), but we can look at rifles in general.
Here's a table of weapons used to kill LEOs. Over the 1990s, rifles (of all types) figured in around 10 officer slayings per year. In 2004, when the assault gun ban ended, it was 13. In 2005, after the ban ended, that actually fell, to 3.
Permalink · media · Comments (0)
Civilian drives robber to flee to the police
Story here. A Houston pushed a woman and tried to drag her purse away, only to have her husband draw a shotgun from his truck and fire (I assume a warning shot).
The robber ran, the husband pursued, and the robber ended by fleeing to a police car, shouting, 'Let me in. They are shooting at me."
This being Houston rather than Great Britain, the police hauled him away.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
American vs. European homicide rates
Don Kates brought my attention to this paper by the late Eric Monkkenen. It's interesting on a number of levels (including the conclusion that European homicide rates were very high during the medieval period and then fell rapidly during the Industrial Age ... when popular histories tended to treat the period as disruption, urbanization, and exploitation).
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (2)
Briton chases down intruder, gets arrested
Story in the London Sun. He finds someone trying to get in a second floor window, when the guy flees he pursues and holds him for police. Police notice the guy has a fat lip ... and arrest the homeowner for assault.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
Good news & bad news at Red's
Entry here. Good news: the local ATF finally approved their computer system. Bad news: they're still pushing ahead with the revocation.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (3)
Richmond ice cream store defender not indicted
Story here. He shot a fleeing robber, which is technically a no-no, but the grand jury did the right rather than the legal thing. (It is rather funny that the prosecutor said he thought he might at least get a misdemeanor discharging a firearm in a public place out of it).
Hat tip to reader Rudy DiGiacinto..
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
Five arrested after student seen with nerf ball gun
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Dave Kopel's take on Fred Thompson vs. the UN
Dave Kopel has blogged his reaction to the Fred Thompson vs. UN defenders controversy.
As usual, Dave's research is deep. After Thompson criticized UN disarmament proposals, and said that the UN report had denied there was any human right to self defense, two journalists attacked his claims, apparently using material borrowed from a UN Foundation webpage. Dave (and a Knoxville newspaper that he cites) take the defense apart.
Permalink · UN · Comments (1)
Anheuser-Busch Conservationist of the Year Award
The A-B company has a conservationist of the year award, for which you can cast votes here. (Go to the Bud site, enter your date of birth, click on the sports and outdoors graphic, and then the outdoors graphic, then click on conservationist of the year award).
The reason I mention this is that a Lowell Baier has been nominated, who wants to give the prize to the habitat conservation fund for Teddie Roosevelt's Elkhorn Ranch. More details in extended remarks.
Continue reading "Anheuser-Busch Conservationist of the Year Award"
More on Texas Land Commissioner
Here's a detailed article on Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson. I know him pretty well, and as the article says, he has firm beliefs and will tell you frankly about them. How he got ahead in the world of politics escapes me.....
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
Fred Thompson and the UN
I'm out of town again, so blogging will be light for a few days, but Fred Thompson's criticism of UN disarmament measures has drawn some criticism from those who say there's nothing out there, and SayUncle weighs in with a devasting counterattack.