« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
April 2008
Circuit court tosses NYC suit
The 2nd Circuit has held that the NY City lawsuit must be dismissed. From the article, it sounds as if they rejected the antigun district judge, Jack Weinstein's approach that a suit based on state nuisance law wasn't covered by the Federal legislation.
Update: here's the the opinion in pdf.
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (3)
The government can't protect, part 1,295
From Oregon comes this remarkable story.
Man chase a woman down in his vehicle, she heads her car toward the police headquarters. She makes it, he rams her car, gets out with a rifle, shoots her and himself before police can respond. (It's a small department, and from the story it sounds as if everyone was out on patrol with only the police chief in the HQ, and he's up on the second floor. When I've gone down to the sheriff's substation for my area, there are plenty of parked squadcars, but if you need to talk to a deputy they have to call one back from patrol. They're stretched thin, so the substation is probably the least-policed location around here).
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
D.C. finds a way to end criminal gangs
It consists of calling them "crews" instead. Presto, there are no gangs and no gang-related violence.
Unusual 911 call
A victim of an earilier robbery calles in to report someone breaking in, and the 911 operator apparently falls asleep on the line.
TSA and arming pilots
TSA's history on the issue has been a classic of passive-aggressive behavior (agreeing, then sabotaging). Annie Jacobson has the latest over at Pajamas Media. They're using a psych test that disqualifies many pilots. Among other things, if you say you'd like to become a fighter pilot, it counts against you, as proof you are too hotheaded to be trusted with a firearm.
Park & FWS proposed rules for firearm carry
Here, in pdf. The Admin Procedure Act specifies that an agency must propose a rule, allow a reasonable time for comment, and then publish a final rulemaking, in the process doing a reasonable of replying to comments.
Basically, carrying is now forbidden in most National Parks and at least restricted on wildlife refuges. Under this rule, a person could carry concealed (only), if he or she had a CCW permit, and state law permits carrying in state parks or wildlife refuge-like areas.
Hat tip to reader Eric...
UPDATE: here's a press release in opposition. Sounds as if they didn't read the proposed rule. E.g., they complain that people might carry in visitor centers, when the proposed rule excludes Park facilities. One of the entities signing onto the release, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, states that it has "nearly 650 members," the others give no figures.
A commentary on the restraint of CCW holders
From the Palm Beach Post, a story that begins "It could've been a typical spat between grocery store customer and manager, with the customer announcing he planned to take his business elsewhere. But then the customer drew his gun. The store manager drew his and so did the assistant manager."
The aggressor fired repeatedly, but the manager and clerk held their fire, cornered him outside, and talked him into putting down his gun. Police arrested him for attempted murder, etc..
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (9)
Professor reports on empty holder protest day
Criminology Prof. Mike Adams writes in Townhall about experiences on empty holster day at UNC. The University's PR department issued a statement opposing the principle of the protest. A poly sci professor came to the table to berate a student who was in favor, ranting, calling them ignorant and crazy, and calling Adams an unqualified right wing nut job. Adams shows up and summarizes the criminological studies on CCW, the other prof admits he is unfamiliar with any of it. Adams gets him calmed down and he finally apologizes.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
tell me it ain't so!
NSSF is pointing out that the mayors who filed suit against gunmakers, or their close associates, have a few skeletons in the closet. As in indictments, racketeering convictions, fraud and extortion raps, etc..
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (5)
NY Daily News on Heller
Editorial here. Author seems rather lacking in knowledge about the case, e.g., that it's a 2nd Amendment and not a 14th Amendment case, and claims things came up in oral argument that did not, to my memory.
His main theme is that strict scrutiny would doom many firearm laws. It rather underscore a point Randy Barnett once made -- opponents of an individual right oppose it because they fear that much of their agenda will fail if anyone asks hard questions about it. What's strict scrutiny? That the law serves a compelling governmental interest, that it is narrowly tailored to serve that interest without impairing rights in a way not essential to it, and that it is the least restrictive way of accomplishing that end.
In short, the statute is directed at a major social problem and properly written. The legislative body didn't just pass it on the theory "there oughta be a law," and not give a hoot about whether its restrictions were really aimed at the problem.
That those opposed to an individual right (or to strict scrutiny) have heartburn over having to do this tells us something about what they themselves think of their agenda....
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (10)
Supreme Court, voting, and picture ID
The Supreme Court, in a very split decision, has upheld requiring picture ID to vote. Stevens writes the sorta-plurality for himself, Roberts, and Kennedy (quite a combination!), while Scalia concurs with Thomas and Alito, and Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer dissent in two different documents.
Don Kates has expressed concern that Heller might wind up with divisions like this.
The sorta-plurality concludes that (under elections case law, which is sorta strange) the burden of getting picture ID is not a heavy burden, except perhaps for a few (who could bring as-applied suits covering only themselves). Scalia says that even as those, the overall burden is so light that the statute should be upheld (i.e., discouraging as-applied challenges, too). The dissent argues that the burden of getting picture ID may be great for the disabled and those without cars. It adds that there is little evidence of in-person voter fraud, but much more for absentee ballot fraud, which is not affected by the law.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (3)
Mayor Daley buying "assault rifles"
Story in the Chicago Tribune
And from Mayor Daley we learn:
There is a form of gun known as "a semi-fully-automatic weapon."
"Criminals" can "carry assault weapons, it's not a violation of federal law..."
The city plans to buy "semiautomatic assault rifles," specifically "M4 carbines." (I guess that could be right if they bought Bushmaster uppers).
Hat tip to reader Ambiguous...
Amusing and interesting article on originalism
Over at Legal Theory Blog. Just understand that in his story, "Grand Union of Constitutional Theorists" equals academics interested in the Constitution, the "SuperChief" train is the Supreme Court, etc. It's both imaginative, and accurate.
Via Instapundit....
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Paper on gun control, race, etc.
I actually found it good, on a quick skim, if you allow for what the author has to do to get it published. The core of it deals with how blacks were disarmed under the Slave Codes and then the Black Codes, how the 14th Amendment was meant to stop that, and didn't, how early in the 20th century blacks formed militias for defense against mobs, and how armed resistance was used in the civil rights movement. Oh, and how the California gun controls adopted in the 1960s were specifically aimed at the Black Panthers, and meant to give grounds to arrest and search them.
OK, now try finding a publisher for that in academia! So, to entice potential publishers, you:
1. Add a provocative title. Great job, BTW. I was always lousy at that.
2. Make it sound new by adding a bunch of buzzwords. "Mythology" is great. Everyone likes to be able to think were smart enough to see thru a myth that others believed in. "Community-protective autonomy," "Identity-protective Reform,"
3. Work in race whenever possible. "In a frightening shift, the phenomenon of blacks self-arming in the last two decades has been another instrument of oppression rather than liberty. As gun-related violence in America has increased, African Americans in urban communities disproportionately feel the devastation. Instead of African Americans looking down the barrel of white guns, the perpetrators of gun oppression are other African Americans.216 The racialized rhetoric and mythology of the Second
Amendment, however, have rendered white America complicit with respect to this crisis."
4. Throw in at least one passing claim that NRA is sorta racist. (If you check the fn. to that, it's a claim that NRA at some point showed images of the Los Angeles riots, and those featured Black rioters.).
But if you ignore what was inserted to attract publishers, rest is pretty good. The linked page has the abstract, and if go to the bottom you can download the paper itself in .pdf.
hat tip to Joe Olson..
Continue reading "Paper on gun control, race, etc."
Permalink · 14th Amendment · Comments (4)
Newspaper gets list of CCW holders
An Oregon court has ruled that the Mail-Tribune has a right to copies of the CCW permit holders in Jackson County.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (10)
Government found liable
here's a report of a verdict and settlement over a 911 call. The woman was being beaten, and ultimately smothered, while she made repeated 911 calls. For some reason the dispatcher merely sent out a call relating a domestic disturbance. The officers took 26 minutes to respond, found nobody responded to the door, and naturally left (you don't bust down a door over a report of a "disturbance," esp. when all seems peaceful).
As a general rule a person cannot sue for a failure to protect. The story refers to a finding of recklessness, which suggests to me that in this state you can sue for a reckless or willful failure.
Hat tip to Curtis Lowe and his blog.
Now a surprising article from BBC
Subtitle: "Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life."
Hat tip to Peter Buxton....
Permalink · media · Comments (9)
Surprising article in Chicago Tribune
"When a rash of gun murders takes place, it makes sense for the police to do one of two things: renew tactics that have been effective in the past at curbing homicides, or embrace ideas that have not been tried before. But those options don't appeal to Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis. What he proposes instead is a crackdown on assault weapons.
I'm tempted to say this is the moral equivalent of a placebo—a sugar pill that is irrelevant to the malady at hand. But that would be unfair. Placebos, after all, sometimes have a positive effect. Assault weapons bans, not so much. ..."
It's gotten 167 comments, and I think I see a few readers in there.... and one from "A Fed":
"First, let me note that I'm a federal prosecutor, but that my opinions are my own, and not necessarily those of the DOJ. However, I come to this debate with more than thirty years in law enforcement. Mr. Chapman is absolutely correct on virtually every point in his article.
The notion of heaping nonsensical restrictions on law-abiding citizens whose primary interest is in protecting themselves and their families has been tried and has failed miserably. In every instance, the effect has been to diminish citizens' constitutional rights, render law-abiding men and women defenseless, and empower human predators to wreak havoc.
The true answer to violence in our society would be complex and difficult. It would require intellectual honesty and genuine commitment on the part of politicians to tackle the real issues of poverty, a failed education system, racial discrimination, and more. However, that is apparently too difficult. So, they return to the intellectually dishonest, facile tactic of misleading the public about guns, engaging in scare tactics to make it appear as though they care. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that restrictions on guns, ownership, and the right to self-defense have actually contributed to making Chicago a more dangerous place.
I had high hopes when Mr. Weis came to the CPD. Now, it appears, he joins the ranks of public officials who have failed us."
Hat tip to readers Blake and Ambiguous...
Permalink · media · Comments (4)
Pizza Hut self-defender fired
SayUncle has the story.
Local contrast: in Tucson, one of the more sickening crimes of the last decade was the "Pizza Hut killings." Two young local thugs robbed a Pizza Hut, became concerned that one of the clerks might have recognized them, and so herded everyone into the back and murdered them all. If one of the clerks, or a deliveryman, or for that matter a customer walking in, had been carrying, it might have been a different story.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (8)
FLA Chamber of Commerce suit vs. commuter self defense
Here's a pdf file of the complaint, scanned and thus rather large. The three theories are deprivation of property w/o due process, taking of property by regulation w/o compensation, and violation of the Federal OSHA standards. I'd rate the first two as very weak, and don't do OSHA so I can't size up the last.
One thing does strike me as incongruous. The last theory invokes a statute which extensively regulates how business is carried on. The first two argue that a far more trifling interference with business is unconstitutional.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
ABC News in another hit piece
I was too busy to give it justice, but Confederate Yankee does a great job.
It is a sign of the weakening dollar that now you're expected to pay a $20 bribe to get your car, and anything hidden in its truck, across the border. In the days when I had time, $10 did it, and offering $20 would excite suspicion that you really did have a trunk full of AKs and C4 and a body.
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
Sen. Coburn on the M4
Senator Coburn raises questions about the M4 rifle.
I've no experience with one. I know that its predecessor, the M-16, had serious jamming problems in Vietnam, and I've read reports of jamming in Iraq, but no idea whether those were common or rare. While I do an AR-15 type firearm, and like it, I've always been a bit suspicious of direct gas impingement, esp. in a setting where you might have to fire off hundreds of rounds without cleaning. Might any readers have experience, or know of those with it, in this area?
UPDATE: I'd agree the cartridge is a big problem -- and least likely to be fixed soon. Changing over is a major operation (and requires coordination with NATO). Consider that in 102 years, we've only switched twice -- from .30-06 to .308, a modest change after nearly half a century, and then to 5.56mm (with lots of .308 weapons still in use).
I was involved in the Waco civil trials, and one exhibit was a revolver carried by an agent as backup. It took a hit square on the sideplate while he wore it, from an AR-15, with the old 55 grain projectile. It blew a star-shaped crater in the sideplate, a little over a half inch in diameter and maybe an eighth of an inch deep. The revolver was probably still usable. The hit knocked him down, he got up and was moving again without injury. You wouldn't see that with a .308. Of course they've switched to a heavier round with a steel penetrator tip, but that just gives a tradeoff. More penetration, but less stopping power. You can use your limited energy and momentum one way or the other.
ANOTHER UPDATE: the problem with Vietnam M-16s was the lack of a chromed chamber, and also a switch in propellant. The rifle was originally tested with tubular powder. Then they went to ball powder. As I recall the issue, the ball powder had more retardent, and thus more fouling. Jams became so frequent that they added the bolt assist to force a jamming round into the chamber (as one user remarked, how come Kalashnikov never had to add this sort of thing to the AK?)/
Prof. tries to ban empty holsters
Story here.
4th Amendment case
The Supremes just decided Virginia v. Moore. Defendant was caught driving on a suspended license. State law provided that he be given a summons, rather than arrested, for that. Officers instead arrested him, and a search incident to arrest uncovered drugs.
The Court, per Scalia, holds that a violation of such a statute does not a 4th Amendment violation make. Police had probable cause and the arrest was not "unreasonable." Justice Ginsburg concurs, suggesting it is a little closer historical case than the majority opinion suggests.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (3)
Joyce, Obama, and the Heller case
I've mentioned below the Politico article on how, during Obama's time as a Director of the Joyce Foundation, it pumped millions into anti-individual rights scholarship. It also goes into Joyce's essentially "buying up" law reviews to run exclusively anti-individual rights article, and the effect on the Heller case (i.e., groups filing amici in support of DC had been recipients of millions from the Foundation).
Now, Obama's campaign has had to respond. It's really a nonresponse, more like "well, the Joyce Foundation also gave money to other things, and Obama says he's really not against the Second Amendment, believe him." That and Joyce Foundation has some (minor) ties to Bill Clinton. The last point is downright pitiful.
Over at Democratic Underground, things are getting out of hand. Hundreds of posts. Hillary supporters, I'd guess, are posting it, and Obama supporters are outraged -- except for the ones who think banning guns is a great idea. One commenter makes a good point: "THIS IS WHAT IS COSTING US ELECTIONS! Saying that "well, most pro-gun people are Rethug anyway" is EXACTLY why we lose elections! Giving the issue to them means that the Thug leadership has a stick to beat their base with. And as HALF of the DU membership owns guns and as 39% of the gun owners in this country are Dems (source: Gallup), we CANNOT afford to give in to the toxic thinking that "well, guns are a Thug issue." Anyone who promotes this view is at best incompetent and at worst a deliberate plant."
Here's some of my past posts on Joyce Foundation:
Its financing of the "GunGuys" antigun web page.
Its financing, and indeed writing, an antigun report of IACP.
Its buying up an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, and doing the same at Fordham Urban Law Journal and Chicago-Kent Law Review (frequently cited in briefs by DC and its amici).
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
One incredible self-defense tale...
Blind man encounters burglar, pins him to the floor, beats him senseless, then holds him at knifepoint for police.
Memo: do not cross this guy.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Florida Chamber of Commerce sues over commuter self-defense law
So reports the Orlando Sentinel. It doesn't state the legal theory, and I have trouble envisioning one, or at least one that might win.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Clinton and McCain can sleep easy
This endorsement tells us Obama's candidacy is doomed. Moore has never yet endorsed a candidate that didn't crash and burn. I mean, last time around he backed Wesley Clark, who flamed out two weeks later. Then he went with "anybody but Bush," and we know who came out on top there.
Update: a comment bounced by the spam filter is in extended remarks, below
Continue reading "Clinton and McCain can sleep easy"
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
John Lott on "Gun Free Zones"
Right here.
Joyce Foundation, Heller case, and Obama
I've mentioned the Joyce Foundation, and its devotion of millions to funding anti-second amendment scholarship.
Yesterday, Politico.com ran an interesting story, noting that Joyce's efforts date to when a lawyer named Barack Obama sat on its Board. Joyce's protests that they really aren't antigun, just funding legal research, is shot down with the note that all the groups they sent money to filed amicus briefs supporting DC in the Heler case.
UPDATE: here's HotAir's take on it.
"Lately, the political world has buzzed about Barack Obama’s tenure with the Woods Foundation, where he worked with domestic terrorist William Ayers and which issued a $75,000 grant to Yasser Arafat toady Rashid Khalidi. However, Politico has found another paid foundation gig which may raise even more questions about Obama’s positions and honesty. While working as a director at the Joyce Foundation, the organization funneled almost $3 million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights ...."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Good editorial on recent GA law
Over at Jason Pye's blog.
Hat tip to reader Mike M. ....
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
Chicago's handgun ban
Chicago's attempt at banning handguns makes that of DC look like a success.
Of course to the city government that's just proof that if there was more regulation of private firearms, it'd work even better. I recall once reading an advocate of Prohibition, after its repeal, still arguing that it would have work if just there had really been a complete ban on alcohol. I forget now what the exceptions were (all tightly regulated), I know there was one for religious services, may have been others for medical use or industrial uses. The author was convinced that these kept the "idea" of alcohol alive and if they'd just have been cut off then the Great Experiment would have succeeded. Sure, Al Capone would have felt a moral duty to straighten out.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (17)
Gun owners hardly bitter
An article by the author of the book "Gross National Happiness" reports survey data indicating that, compared to nonowners, gun owners were:
20% more likely to rate themselves as "very happen," and about half as likely to rate themselves as "not very happy":
Spent 15% less time feeling outraged at someone else
Although more likely to feel that those in need should take care of themselves, were more likely to give to charity and to donate blood.
"What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun."
Hat tip to Instapundit, The Bitch Girls, and several other sources.;
Crime drop in prisons
A Weekly Standard article notes that, while violent crime has dropped generally, violent crime in prisons has fallen to an incredible degree -- as in a 94% fall in homicides.
The article attributes it to better administration, which I suspect is correct. Back in the 70s, one of my partners had a client a fellow who had been in and out of prison for many years. He was intelligent, but had an explosive temper. The tiniest bit of prodding and it was another agg. assault conviction. We got to talking about what prison was like, and he pointed out that if you looked at the guard to convict ratio, there were enough guards to ensure that all was under control. But, he pointed out, they were generally (up in the attic, I think he said) smoking pot. And often dealing it to the inmates. He said if he were made warden he'd (1) fire all the then-current guards, because so many were corrupt or lazy it wasn't worth finding the exceptions; (2) he'd double the pay and (3) with that as an attraction, hire good replacements. He figured he could have the entire place in order, honest, and safe in a few months. Unfortunately, his long list of felony convictions probably ruled out being hired as warden. But I rather suspect something like his agenda was carried out over the years.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (1)
Approaches to judging a case
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr has a link to an interview of a prof. who clerked for Justice Goldberg on the Supreme Court, in the early 60s. One passage caught my eye:
"Working for him was an eye-opening experience. His first question in approaching a case always was, “What is the just result?” Then he would work backward from the answer to that question to see how it would comport with relevant theory or precedent. It took me a while to get used to that approach. The way I had learned the law at Harvard was that you looked up the answer in a book. The law was composed of “neutral principles” that you could apply to get the proper result..."
I have no problem with a trial judge seeking a just result. Nor with an appellate judge seeking a just result within the law... construing a statute so as to accomplish a fair rule, if only because the legislative body probably intended that. But I do think it questionable to make that the entire purpose, and then working backward to make the law or Constitution conform. My idea of fairness differs from that of everyone else (e.g., having grown up as a construction worker's son, you can guess my idea of fairness in employer/employee relationships), and should not be able to override the Framers, or the legislature's, idea of fairness.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (6)
Waco, 15 years after
Here's a link to my Waco page, established years ago (and never had time to update, so some audio files are out of order). It took 3-4 years of Freedom of Information Act litigation to get the data. I'll give you one teaser....
For months before the first raid, they had agents watching from a house across the street. Watching for the David Koresh that they'd later claim couldn't be arrested peacefully because he was a paranoid recluse.
Guess what the agents did, nine days before the shootout?
They went shooting.
With David Koresh. He brought the ammo, and was unarmed except when one agent loaned him a. 38 Super. It's all in the agents' report for that day. Oh, and it later develops that Koresh *knew* they were undercover agents. In a 911 call, even as the shootout was going on, Koresh refers to one of them by his first name as "your agent" and "the guy you sent out here."
Here's a link to my book on Waco, "This Is Not An Assault."
UPDATE: a comment asks "why?" Let's just say that as a former bureaucrat, when I heard of the first day's raid, my first question was "when does their House appropriation cycle start?" I found that was something like ten days after the raid and shootout.
Small, struggling law enforcement agencies (and ATF surely was that, faced esp. with the "Reinventing Governement" initiative) often stage big, flashy raids just before their first appropriations hearings. In this case, it was apparent that the raiders did NOT expect a shootout. No one brought spare ammo. Some carried AR-15s with only one magazine. It was supposed to be a big flashy raid, with three helos swooping, easy job, nobody hurt, lots of headlines. If the video on the website still runs, you can see agents joking around, reading the morning paper. No tension. This is a big show.
Later heard, second hand hearsay, that someone in the second level of command privately said that when they got word that secrecy was blown, the guy in charge knew that this was to be the agency's big push, and the deputy director, I think it was, was a throat-cutter. If he cancelled the raid, as was only logical, the guy would ruin him. So he chose to run the risk and just hope that the Davidians would submit. Which almost happened, BTW. Koresh ran out front, shouting there were women and children inside -- putting himself as the best target if shooting broke out, which he obviously didn't expect. Then shots erupted, not from the front, but to the rear. A bunch of people, fingers on triggers, scared out of their minds (on both sides), and shots break out, guess what happens.
It's a measure of the agency that the agent who did best that day, Robert Rodriguez, who was the only guy with guts enough to go into the building as the raid was on its way (and who Koresh had some to like a lot), and who came out and had the guts to try to stop it -- was hounded out of the agency, and wound up suing it and winning for, if I recall, betraying his psychiatric records of counseling after the event.
Bit of embarassment for TV personality
Oops. I think with a declining value of the dollar you now have to be worth *ten* million to become eccentric....
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
Blood baths in Kanas
The (anti)"gunguys" worry about the prospect that Kanasa might allow private sake of licensed Title II firearms. I.e., firearms that cost $5000 and up, require FBI fingerprint clearance, and in 70 years have been involved in, depending upon which report you want to believe, either zero or one violent crimes. I'm tembling in my boots...
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (7)
Law clerks and reversal rates
An interesting paper with the interesting title of "Want Your Opinions Questioned or Reversed? Hire a Yale Clerk."
He takes nearly 13,000 federal decisions, tracks whether they have been reversed or questioned, and then compares that to the rank of the law school from which the judge's clerks graduated. In almost all cases, there was no significant relationship to be found: whether your clerks came from Yale or Pepperdine didn't make you more likely to be reversed or not (there was a slight, but not very signficant, positive relationship with higher law school ranks). But for Yale there was a significant relationship -- to being reversed, that is.
Search service that contributes to NRA Foundation
It's powered by Yahoo, and called Goodsearch. If you click on the shopping panel, you can search Amazon, Apple Store, Ebay, etc., and a percent of your buy goes to NRA Foundation.
More on the campaign...
Here. Must be rather disheartening to Brady. Two candidates very favorable to you, falling over each other to tell the public that they're not, and accusing the other of being your true ally, treating such status as a horrible thing.
Busy today, so blogging will be light.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (1)
Never bring a bat to a gunfight, pt. 2
More detail here. The explanation of suicide by cop raises questions in my mind. If a person wants the officer to kill him, it's hardly wise to begin by nailing the officer over the head with a bat, likely knocking him out or killing him. Or to attack from behind. The comments in the previous thread did raise some interesting issues. Might it have been a plan to get hands on the officer's gun, and use it in a mass killing? Might the officer have ejected the magazine, knowing it would disable his gun due to the magazine safety? (At least on my 1911, the safety is nowhere near the mag release -- on the other hand, having been nailed over the head with a bat probably leaves you going on reflex rather than thought).
Doug in Colorado notes, in a comment blacked by the spam filter:
ukulkan, sorry, I can't buy it...the first blow, which left a couple of inch cut in the scalp to be stitched up, would have been about as likely to either kill or render unconscious the officer...not just rattle him. No high school kid can plan with that kind of precision where and how hard to hit him so as to shake him up but not knock him out. Heck, no adult could count on that kind of precise effect either.
...If he really wanted to commit suicide by cop, he could have produced a look-alike airsoft gun or a knife...not bothered attacking him from behind.
The family's reaction is, well, interesting. "He's the baby of our family, and they took him away," ""We just want to know what happened before that incident to see what made him do what police say he did."
"They" didn't take him away, and nothing "made him do" it. He tried to murder someone, and if his aim had been better by an inch or two, he would have succeeded. He was trying to finish the job when the victim got his backup gun clear.
UN suspends food shipments in Darfur due to inability to protect
Story here.
"Claiming banditry against food trucks as the root cause, officials with the United Nation’s World Food Program announced today they are cutting rations to the people of Sudan’s Darfur region."
via Instapundit...
UPDATE: Bob McCarty also has an interesting post on Students for Concealed Carry.
Permalink · UN · Comments (4)
NRA gets court order blocking Philadelphia's new ordinances
A judge this morning issued an order temporarily enjoining enforcement of the city's new ordinances. The injunction will last at least until the next hearing on April 28.
Another story here.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (4)
Dave Kopel on the PA primary
Dave has an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal.
Hat tip to reader Marcus P. ...
UPDATE: He's off a little on steel. It was known, at least as far back as the Romans, but nobody could mass produce it until the 19th century. Up thru the middle ages, it was common to make weapons of iron, with a steel cutting edge welded on.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (5)
Never bring a bat to a gunfight...
Story here.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (3)
The Onion on state gun laws
Right here.
(For those not familiar with The Onion, it's a satire/humor site.)
NY Times on guns on campus
The Times just published an op-ed by David Codrea on the subject. He does an excellent job of nailing the campus administration.
American Shooters & Hunters Ass'n ... backs Obama
I've mentioned ASHA before, as a "false flag" group, bankrolled by lord knows who to serve as a supposedly pro-gun group, but staffed by antigunners. ASHA nicely shows its true colors by endorsing Obama. I guess Hillary was just too pro-gun for them.
How is ASHA getting its money? Well, I found this $65,000 grant from a foundation with no connection to shooting or to hunting.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Supreme Court on firearm mandatory sentencing
Decision in Begay v. US is here. Federal law imposes a 15 year mandatory sentence for a felon in possession of a gun if he has three prior felony convictions of a certain type, i.e., certain drug offenses, or violent felonies (defined in statute). Begay turned out to have had an impressive 12 DUI convictions, and under state law the 4th and all later ones were felonies. The district court and 10th Circuit held that the DUIs were violent felonies within the meaning of the statute, which defines the term to include a felony that "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."
The Supreme Court reverses: the def. of violent felony hinges upon how state law defines the felony, not on the manner in which it happens to be committed. DUI does not require that the driver present a serious potential risk in order to be convicted. If the statute were read that broadly, it would include things like discharging pollution, etc.
Breyer writes, for five Justices. Scalia concurs, saying that he'd construe the "otherwise" clause in light of the felonies which are listed in statute, as applying only to offences at least as dangerous as the least dangerous listed one.
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Souter. His approach is textual: the "otherwise" clause is what it says, and this offense fits its definition.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (2)
Gov. Crist signs FLA commuter self defense law
Just got word from United Sportsmen of Florida--it's been signed into law (note it may not take immediate effect, State legislation often goes into effect X days after end of the session).
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (6)
Philadelpha DA agrees new city ordinances are illegal
Philadelphia District Arrorney Lynn Abraham has advised that the city's new antigun ordinances are "on their face, illegal acts."
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (10)
Update on NC high school that barred participation on rifle team
They appear to be reconsidering, albeit with nervousness about insurance.
Gun control warming up at state level
Or so the New York Times reports.
(I'd say heating up, except if you read carefully Brady Campaign boasts that they have lots of bills proposed, with no suggestion they are going anywhere, and that this year they actually got some far enough in PA to where they could be voted down. Neither seems a particularly impressive accomplishment. A loss on the floor isn't much of a "defining moment.")
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (0)
Another dumb crook story
Lady jailed after she pays theft fine using stolen credit card.
UPDATE: I see someone is following Alan around, hoping for links and hits...
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (7)
More dancing around the gun issue
Story right here.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Howard Nemerov on radio/internet
Howard will be on NRANews.com at 10:40 PM Eastern tonight, to discuss his latest article.
Clayton Cramer interview
War on Guns has it.
Budd Schroeder running for Congress in NY
Gunnie and NRA director Budd Schroeder is running for Congress in NY, on the Conservative Party ticket. (NY has several significant "third parties").
Wikipedia assist needed
The Wikipedia entry on CCW laws is proposed for removal due to too few citations or links. (It looks like there are, but in fact the State names link only to entries describing the state, not to firearm laws). If anyone has some Wiki skills, they might drop over there and bolster the entry.
Obama's comment....
Hmmm... rural folk are bitter, and that's why they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It's a pretty strange observation from a fellow who has spent the last few months trying convince people that:
1. Really likes the Second Amendment;
2. Is quite religious; and
3. Absolutely opposes free trade agreements.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
Don't you hate family feuds?
Especially when they're over how to bring up the kids.
VA CCW permit applications up
As in by 60% over last year.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (5)
Another "wrong house" raid
ATF breaks down door, shoots in tear gas and finds it has the wrong house. Wrong street, in fact.
(Sounds like their tear gas isn't the most effective, either. "The agents left the tear gas cans in the house, and Silvain kicked them out and into the street before dumping them into the garbage.")
High school team withdrawn from rifle competition
Because it conflicts with school policy on guns.
"Like districts across the nation, Wake County bans deadly weapons from campuses and prohibits students from carrying them on school trips. But the decision to bar the East Wake team from the tournament extends that prohibition to students participating in an off-campus event sponsored by a state agency and supervised by adults certified in firearms safety.
That call pits school policy against state law that allows firearms education at schools. The decision also runs counter to the efforts of wildlife agencies, hunting organizations and gun groups to recruit youths to replenish the dwindling number of hunters. It also underscores the tension between the fear of school massacres and the traditions of rural Wake, where hunting is still common."
Hillary finally mentions guns
From the Boston Globe:
"Clinton talked about gangs and drugs as a cause of homicides, but mentioned guns only in passing. She noted "a direct correlation between the illegal gun sales and homicides," as she proposed a new initiative to crack down on interstate gun trafficking and allow federal agencies to share information on the transfer of guns. In addition, Clinton said she would work to renew the assault-weapons ban, signed by President Clinton in 1994 but allowed to lapse a decade later."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (7)
GA passes major pro-gun bill
Story here. It allows CCW permittees to carry in mass transit, parks, establishments whose primary income is food (i.e, restaurants rather than bars). It also broadens carrying in vehicles for non-CCW holders, shortens the time for permit issuance, sets up Mayor Bloomberg if he again tries straw man entrapment, and does a lot more. CHeck out the post for details.
To contact the governor and urge him to sign, go here.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Podcast of my take on Heller
It's at Mark Vanderberg's site, gunrights.us.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
W. VA. gets Castle Doctrine
Story here.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Bob Levy to speak in Mesa AZ
Bob Levy, one of the architects of Parker/Heller vs. DC, will be speaking on April 15, at 6:30 PM, at Macayo's Depot Cantina 300 S. Ash Ave., Tempe AZ (ph 480-966-6677). He'll probably discuss both Heller and his new book, "The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (0)
Online polls re: FLA law
A couple are posted by different papers:
The Orlando Sentinel asks: "Should Florida businesses be permitted to bar employees from bringing guns in their cars to work? "
While the Miami Herald asks "Will you be bringing a gun to work? "
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
Indie movie out
Here's the trailer for The Cult of Sincereity, an independent comedy produced by Daniel Nayeri, who was the publcist for "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man." The film's own website is here.
How it is in some schools...
From the DC Examiner comes a story about Baltimore schools:
"Students hitting teachers. A gang brawl over the color of a middle schooler’s shoes. Teachers, parents and students worried about the violence on Baltimore’s streets increasingly spilling over into city schools.
“Unfortunately, I’m not surprised that it’s still happening,” said Julia Gumminger, who quit teaching art at Waverly Elementary/Middle School last year after students pushed her against a wall — twice.
After a two-day suspension, the offender was back in her class, a pattern for violent students, teachers say."
"She could relate to the plight of another art teacher, Jolita Berry, who was beaten Friday by a student in her classroom at Reginald F. Lewis High School after she told the student to sit down. Another student used a camera phone to record the attack, and the video surfaced on MySpace.com and showed classmates cheering on the attacker. ... Berry said she informed her principal of the attack, only to be told she had provoked the attack because she told a student she would defend herself."
Now this brings home the contradiction
From an Op-Ed:
"This I believe, because I am a liberal.
. . . . .
I believe the right of free speech should be limited only by the unnecessary shouting of “fire” in a crowded theatre.
I believe the right to carry guns should be limited to only civilian persons, and police or military persons should be required to remain unarmed, unless, of course, they have a hunting license for the state in which they reside, or are members of the National Rifle Association.
I believe the conservative organizations, such as the NRA and other firearms conscious groups, should be outlawed, as well as hunting licenses."
I do find amusing the following:
"I believe that some day a candidate will admit to being as liberal as John F. Kennedy did in his race. He is thought to be the last presidential candidate who admitted it publicly, some 35 years ago."
JFK ran on a ticket of "close the missile gap," arguing that we needed more nukes aimed at the Soviet Union, and that Eisenhower had allowed the Soviets to move ahead of us in terms of nuclear missiles. He, oh, put American troops in Vietnam, initiated and then abandoned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, made assassinating/deposing Castro one of his major priorities. On the side, he appointed racist judges in the south to appease the Dixiecrat wing of the party, allowed J. Edgar Hoover to wiretap and bug Martin Luther King to see whether he was a communist, etc., etc. This is the author's avatar of a liberal? Oh, and his one race for President was 48 years ago, not 35. How memories fade....
I see a lawsuit coming....
Despite PA having statewide pre-emption, and Philadelphia having lost attempts to amend that, the city council has enacted five new gun control ordinances, and the appropriately-named Mayor Nutter announces he will "order their immediate enforcement."
I guess he's never heard of false arrest, section 1983, and a few other details like that.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (6)
McCain has "work to do with gun owners"
Yep, he certainly does.
Maybe this is this question we should be asking.
Reader Carl in Chicago adds a comment, replying to comments, which the spam filter for some reason blocked:
"I'd love to see a more pro-2A front-running candidate. Probably all of us would.
But regarding voting your principles, protest write-ins, and just staying home on election day, sometimes I fear that some of us have never taken any lessons from Don Quixote.
If you don't comprehend Cervantes, I can use a poker analogy. When you play poker, you play the hand you've got and you make the best of it. Sometimes (very rarely) you win a big pot. Other times, you win a small pot. Sometimes you break even. And yes...sometimes you lose with the hand you have.
But one thing's for certain. You're damned well guaranteed to lose if you fold.
Please folks, don't fold on this. Folding is for when it's time to invoke the purpose of the 2A...and that time sure ain't now."
Reader Renaissance Man responds with a comment, again blocked by the spam filter (which I cannot figure out, but it does stop a hundred or so spams a day, selling everything from viagra to forklifts):
"Carl, the poker analogy is completely bogus. As I commented in a different thread, what we have here is similiar to a labor negotiation. We have power, but the only way to use that power is to cause ourselves short term damage to effect long term gain. A strike causes temporary loss of income which negatively affects the worker and his or her family. However, by accepting such damage the workers as a whole are able to gain a better contract.
The same thing is at work here. As long as the Republican party knows that it will get unquestioning support from gun owners because Democrats are "more evil" then we have NO power. Only by operating en masse and denying McCain the Presidency will we be able to gain or regain the power that we should have."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (11)
San Fran handgun ban finally dead
The CA Supreme Court has denied review of the appellate decision striking it.
FLA passes bill on rt. to have gun in locked car while at work
It's passed both houses and is on to the governor, who says he will probably sign it.
If you're in FLA, you might want to note (a) some forms of this bill only covered CCW holders; I don't know what the final form does; (b) it would go into effect July 1.
Someone has to come up with a shorter title for this sort of legislation. "Bill that allows a person to have a gun in their locked car while at work and parked in the lot of an employer whose policies forbid having a gun in a parked car" is too long. "Castle Doctine," "No Retreat," "shall-issue" worked nicely, but these bills are hard to describe!
Reader Wrangler5 notes, in a comment blocked by the spam filter:
Imposing liability on the employer for disarming its otherwise lawfully armed employees would be a wonderful step, but it would have to extend to events beyond the employer's gate. If your employer wants you to leave your gun at home, then the employer should be liable while you are traveling between your home and work, as well as while you're on the company's property. Otherwise they just have to provide super security while you're inside their gates, but can force you to face the tender mercies of the "outside" world unarmed once you're gone.
Unfortunately this approach would fly in the face of about a hundred years of legislative efforts to LIMIT employer liability for employee injuries. Most state governments have come to the conclusion that a dead employee is worth about $10,000 (or whatever the worker's comp figure is in your state) and that's it. Employers count on this as an upper limit on their liability and have built it into their budget (somewhat subconsciously, as it's basically just part of the underlying insurance rates.) Opening the door to (relatively) unlimited employer liability would take a sea-change in thinking in the legislative process.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (17)
Solution to Brady foulup: they'll just crash the memorial service
From Bitter comes this article. We old attorneys are cynical and hard to disgust, but this comes pretty close.
As mentioned a few days ago, Brady Campaign wanted to have a PR event, on Virginia Tech, on the anniversary of the shootings. Then they found out it required a permit, which they didn't have, and the time and location of their PR event conflicted with the University's own memorial service.
Solution: go ahead anyway. Brady Campaign don' need no steenking permit! We already notified the press, dammit!
"The Brady Campaign sent out a media advisory last Thursday announcing the event, planned in conjunction with the gun control group ProtestEasyGuns.com. Hamm said the gun-control groups had not discussed the event with the university, but he was initially discouraged by what he saw as a hard-line stance by the university against issuing a permit. He said this morning that the event would go ahead as scheduled — permit or no permit. But by this afternoon, he was optimistic that Tech students involved in the protest would be able to reach a compromise with the administration. He said the goal of the protesters was never to interfere with memorial events."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
Charlton Heston roundup
Former NRA President Sandy Froman writes at TownHall of her her experience as Heston's VP, and of what Heston did for the organization in the years before his election.
Over at the [London] Times Online, Nick Hume has tribute from the British Left:
"Charlton Heston's obituarists worry that his acting career might be “overshadowed” by his controversial stance against gun control. Let's hope so. Most of Heston's movie roles were as stiff as his chiselled jaw. But his rock-like defence of the right to bear arms was worthy of an award.
I say this not as a right-wing Republican, but as a Brit of the Left. Hollywood liberals demonised the man who was Moses for his pro-gun views. But that only shows how illiberal they have become. Anybody who retains enough liberal spirit to believe in individual freedom as the basis for a civilised society ought to have stood at Heston's right hand on this issue."
UPDATE: Another from the British Left. Brendan O'Neill writes in the Guardian:
"From great actor and progressive campaigner to reactionary old fart who loved guns: everyone agrees it was a tragic fall from grace. But did Heston really make a dramatic political u-turn? Actually, no. From the 1950s to the 1990s, he remained rather consistent in his commitment to upholding America's freedoms. It was his liberal critics in the gun control lobby on the east coast and in trendy parts of LA who changed their tune, and made a mad swing from liberalism to authoritarianism.
How gun control came to be seen as a liberal cause is one of life's great mysteries. In both the US and across Europe, fully paid-up lefties and progressives will tell you with pride, even pomposity, that the American authorities ought to disarm their populace and ban guns.
What a turnaround. Demanding gun control has traditionally been the preserve of reactionary, even racist elements in American society. Up until the 1980s, gun control was mostly a conservative campaign, driven by a conviction amongst right-leaning activists, politicians and lawmakers that ordinary people, especially those of the non-white variety, could not possibly be trusted with guns. Only the state, they believed, should have the right to use fatal physical force."
Read it all--he gets into the racist history of gun laws in the US, and "Charlton Heston, in demanding equal treatment for blacks in the 1950s and later calling for everyone to have the right to bear arms, was a better representative of the spirit of American equality than any of those gun control campaigners who turned him into their favourite redneck whipping boy."
Permalink · NRA · Comments (6)
Ooops....
Brady Campaign planned to kick off nationwide protests, a week from today, with one at Virginia Tech. Unfortunately for them, they forgot to get a permit. On top of that, the University only issues assembly permits to student groups, and the time/place designated by Brady, noon on the drillfield, conflicts with a memorial service already scheduled.
"Tech's position threw the Brady Campaign's plans into disarray yesterday: The noon demonstration at Tech was supposed to be the centerpiece of a nationwide series of events on April 16 in more than 70 cities and towns."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (7)
Prof. O'Shea on Heller
The title says it all: "Court can serve cause of liberty".
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (0)
Funeral of Pima Co. Public Defender
I went to the funeral of Bob Hooker, Pima Co. Public Defender, today. He was killed by somebody drag racing at 100 mph plus down a narrow urban street.
Tucson Community Center donated one of its halls for the event, and it was needed. I'd guess there were 600+ people there. Hooker was VERY well respected in the community, and had practiced here for decades.
One speaker was his former secretary, who'd been his ass't when he was a Superior Court judge, and went with him into private practice. She said he would go over to the courthouse for some motions in a paying case, and come back with some indigent to whom he'd volunteered services. When she pointed out that this guy wasn't going to help pay the overhead, Hooker would always respond, "I just can't help myself."
A damn good man (he was killed on his 44th wedding anniversary, to give one indication) and an excellent attorney. He and his deputy Bob Hirsch turned the office around from a demoralized and largely ineffective one, into one of the top five in the country. Instead of farming out murder cases, they brought in experienced attorneys, kept the cases in-house, and saved the county $22 million a year. As a result, the county had no problem giving them very nice offices, on the highest floor of a 22 story building, in the recently-vacated suites that used to belong to the oldest firm in town. Let's just say you don't see many PD offices with their type of accomodations!
Obama aims for gun vote
This election is getting complicated.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (23)
14th Amendment and the Colfax Massacre
Charles Lane continues to guest blog at Volokh Conspiracy, on the subject. His latest post, recounting the history of the US Atty who brought the Cruikshank prosecutions (and got fired over it) is here .
Permalink · 14th Amendment · Comments (0)
Article on difference between feeling secure and being secure
Some interesting thoughts by Bruce Schneier. Check out the linked pieces, too, where he explores such topics as why the human brain is second-rate when it comes to logically assessing risk (the assessment appears wired into two different parts of the brain, one advanced and one primitive), why we have cognitive challenges when trying to undertake it (overestimating risks that are rare but spectacular, new risks, man-made risks, risks over which they have no control, etc.), and thus why companies, governments, etc. target making people feel safer, whether are not they are safer.
All interesting points. I remember flying out of San Fran airport after 9/11. National Guardsmen all over. Only a gunny would recognized that none were allowed to have magazines in their M-16s. Heard a rumor, not confirmed, that they weren't even allowed to have magazines with live ammo on them. Even if they did, they'd obviously be gunned down while loading. But people who didn't know enough to see that their guns were unloaded undoubtedly felt more secure.
Hat tip to reader Jerry in Detroit.
Charlton Heston, rest in peace
Story here.
UPDATE: great tribe at the Belmont Club:
"Not very many people will remember that Charlton Heston picketed a segregated theater premiering his own movie; or that he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr on the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington. All at a time when no one in Hollywood was willing to speak out against racism. It's more likely that he'll be remembered as the six foot three inch tall actor, who played Moses and Ben Hur, and later became the president and spokesman for the National Rifle Association advocating the right to keep and bear arms; or recall that he opposed affirmative action. But Heston the marcher and Heston the NRA president come closer together if one recalls that in the actor's mind at least, racial segregation helped the cause of Communism. The fight for freedom took many forms, but underneath its varied guises it was always the same thing."
UPDATE: Newsbusters has an interesting rundown of how the media treated him during his life, after becoming NRA president. Suddenly he became a "polarizing" person. ("Polarizing" being someone who takes a stand the author doesn't like. If the author likes it, it becomes "leadership" or "frankness".).
Permalink · NRA · Comments (4)
documentary screening in L.A. tommorrow....
"In Search of the Second Amendment" shows on the big screen tommorrow, Saturday, at 10 AM, at the Backlot Film Festival. It's in Culver City, west end of Los Angeles.
Permalink · documentary film · Comments (0)
Mayor Daley speaks for stiffer gun control and public honesty
Video here. All right, I was kidding about the public honesty. Did the governor ever get flamed in the first comment, tho!
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
TSA to make excuses on its pilot gun policies
CrimeFileNews has the story.
Knowing how bureaucracies work, the position will be (1) pilot error; (2) proves how dangerous arming pilots was and (3) there is no way that our ridiculous, dangerous rules and wierd mandated holsters that are just asking for an accident shot could possibly have contributed. An agency cannot be wrong. Because they have already agreed they were right. And no individual is going to be the first to say their policies are insane.
Obama's Smoking Gun?
It's a Townhall column by Sandy Froman.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (6)
Gun law attorney in New York
Just got this, in a comment to an old post. As there aren't a lot of gun law attorneys around, I thought it merited posting.
Mr. John S. Chambers, Esquire practices exclusively in the field of second amendment/gun
licensing in New York City and I believe he also takes cases from NJ.
John S. Chambers' website is www.nygun.com
or www.pistolpermitattorneynyc.com
Medical article on Heller
By Garen Wintermute. As I recall, he's the beneficiary of Joyce Foundation largesse. And it cites to David Hemenway, another beneficiary. Got to wonder what a medical journal figures it has to do with a court case. It tries to argue that the DC gun ban worked (using a study which, if I recall, used the wrong start date for the handgun ban -- it was technically on the books on one date, but operation was enjoined for the better part of a year after that, which made a big difference to any conclusion you could draw, since violence had already been dropping in the District.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Court finds State LEOs can bar Federal LEOS
And it's a U.S. district court to boot. I don't quite see how the result squares with the Supremacy Clause....
SC lowers age for handgun purchase to 18
Story here. It lowered the state age from 21 to 18; the federal age, for purchase from an FFL, remains 21.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Rex Davis, RIP
Rex Davis, first head of BATF, has died. He must have made it up there in years -- I seem to recall that he retired in the early 1980s.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
Opinion on employment and firearm rights
Gene Volokh has a posting on an employment law case. Normally, an at-will employee can be fired, or quit, for any reason. In this case, he was fired because he brought a firearm to work. He sued, and the court refuses to dismiss his suit (although he might lose it later). The reasoning: (1) the state constitutional provision on right to arms for self defense indicates a strong public policy (while not binding a private property owner directly) in favor of such and (2) it is alleged that the employer really didn't have such a policy in place at the time of the firing, they just decided they didn't like it and fired him out of hand.
"Living constitutionalist's" frustration at Heller
Steve Griffin, over at Balkanization.
As near as I can see, in this context his view would amount to "conditions have changed since 1789, and hence the meaning of the bill of rights has changed." NOT just that there are different considerations in trying to establish the limits of the right (which would hardly be controversial, or justify designating a school of thought), but rather rights may vanish (I assume that is his approach) if conditions change in the eyes of the judiciary (again, I'd assume this is his designated decisionmaker).
Wonder why the Framers bothered to establish a way to amend the Constitution,if that is so, and why they put such strict requirements on it? Sounds to me as if they meant it to be a deal that can be changed, not by a majority, but by something approaching a national consensus.
Hmmm... and in this context, wouldn't understanding "the threat guns can pose to police officers" require assessment of the work of various statisticians and criminologists -- John Lott, Gary Kleck, Steve Levitt come to mind, but there are many others -- on guns, gun laws, crime and self defense?
In a way the last hearkens for a return to ... well, it's hard to describe. But essentially days when the Court asssessed rights and their limits with reference to present conditions, but without any real data -- perhaps because it didn't exist, but does in this field. Freedom of speech: "fighting words" can be outlawed because they lead to fisticuffs (but without any empirical evidence that they do so). Porn can be outlawed (with the definition swinging wildly over the years) without any hard evidence that it inflicts harm, let alone that the harm is redressed by this or that definition). Defamation suits can be curtailed in various ways without real evidence that the protection was necessary to avoid chilling speech. I find most of the results made some sense, and at least did no harm, but it's hard to avoid concluding that this was "law office policymaking" rather than "law office history."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (19)
Interesting discussion on Cruikshank and 14th Amendment
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy. It features guest blogging by Charles Lane, author of The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, The Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction. The Colfax Massacre is what gave rise to Cruikshank.
Permalink · 14th Amendment · Comments (2)
Canadian paper interviews Steve Levitt
Story here. He's and economist and the author of Freakonomics. While he's had battles with John Lott (as I recall, the dispute was over whether more CCW means less crime, Lott's position, or doesn't affect crime one way of the other, his position), he tells the Canadian paper that gun laws do nothing to lower crime rates, a swimming pool in the backyard is more dangerous than a gun in the house, and gun laws have few effects, except when they are counterproductive effects.
Permalink · Crime and statistics
Pizza Hut, again
Deliveryman gets robbed, shoots in defense, and gets suspended.
Via Instapundit...
Heller: other side manning lifeboats
Here's an article by a former staff attorney to the Brady Campaign.
It doesn't talk a lot about the core issue, but winds up agreeing that "the justices’ statements at the oral argument, as well as their previous comments and general ideological leanings, strongly suggest that at least five of them will endorse the view that the Second Amendment extends broadly to reach more than just military activities"
It ends with hopes the Court will focus on standard of review, maybe uphold part of the DC law and strike other parts.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
Lost our public defender
Bob Hooker. A few years back, the PD's office was a bunch of demoralized people. The two best defense guys in town, Hooker and Bob Hirsch, gave up private practice, took it over, brought in experienced people like my former law partner, and turned it around. My former partner reported they're up to 50% wins on jury trials, and winning a majority of motions to suppress. Heard the Office is now among the top five in the country.
Last night he was driving home, north up Main Street -- a little two to four lane urban road, not a fast moving one. Unfortunately, two teens decided to drag race going south on it. One, in a pickup, went airborne crossing the RR tracks, which are on a grade, and went head on into Hooker's SUV. An officer saw the crash, and says Hooker was gone when he got to him.
UPDATE: talked to a PD. Hooker was tied up in traffic on Main St., a slow road leading north out of downtown. The drag racers were heading south at an estimated 100 mph on that congested road, went airborne, crossed into the northbound lanes and smashed into his car.
He was on his way home for his 33rd wedding anniversary.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (3)
I give up hopes for our language
Harvard, where you must talk as if your teeth were wired together, advertises for a law school job with: "Duties and Responsibilities: Works proactively and independently with minimal oversight to conduct research and analyze results, while also functioning as part of a research team or working group."
Harvardians: there is no such word as "proactive." The converse of reactive is active. If there were a converse to reactive, which there is not, it would be preactive, from the stem pre, or before in the sense of time, rather than pro, in the sense of in favor of.
Third graders plot attack on teacher
Story here.
I was schooled by the Old Nuns. They would not have worried about attacks with conventional weapons. Nor called the police. They would simply have ripped an arm off the ringleader and used it to beat him to death. These were 4'2" 90 year old women who could have cowed a Marine DO. The DO may act like God, but these women had a direct pipeline to God's mother.
I remember one incident where I had misbehaved in some minor way, and was standing at attention before the Old Nun's desk.
"There are some schools where you would be allowed to do that, Mr. Hardy. (Even at 13, you were "Mister"). Do you know what they are called?"
"No, Sister."
"They are called (sneering tone) progressive schools. This is NOT a progressive school. Do you understand that?"
"Yes, Sister."
(I later found out that "progressive education" was a concept of some Dewey fellow, same guy who invented the libraries' Dewey Decimal Code. No idea what a progressive school was, except that 7th grade at All Saints' was NOT it). And yes, they drove us hard and taught us well.).
Worker's Compensation decision regarding officer
If I were the officer, I'd be hacked at the City of Tucson. Here's the court opinion, which rejected the City's position.
Basically, an off-duty officer is riding his mountain bike, with friends in a rural area, at night, when he hears gunshots and suggests they leave. As they are doing so, the shooters arrive and open fire on them. (Apparently they were unarmed: not at all recommended in the desert). He takes cover and makes plans, but notices one of his friends has frozen and not taken cover. In the course of pushing him down he is shot and seriously injured. They memorize the license plate of a vehicle they encounter and suspect, and report it.
He applies for Worker's Comp, and the City fights the claim, arguing he was off-duty, and at the moment he was hit was trying to protect his friend, rather than apprehend the shooters. The City wins in front of an Admin Law Judge (who had the nerve to find that his conduct in protecting his friend "fell below the standard of care" for an officer), but the court reverses him, pointing out that Departmental policy is that an off-duty officer still has LEO responsibilities, including protecting the public.