« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »
June 2008
Stevens' dissent: can Congress define the militia?
In an email, J. Norman Heath (THE authority on Federal-State pre-emption of militia statutes) points out an interesting thing. Stevens' dissent takes the view that the entire purpose of the 2A was to allow States to form militias independent of Federal control (he makes this point in reply to Scalia's argument that a right limited to enrolled militia would be meaningly as a check on the national government, since it could define who is in the militia).
Stevens argues in fn. 20:
"The Court assumes -- incorrectly, in my view -- that even when a state militia was not called into service, Congress would have had the power to exclude individuals from enlistment in that state militia. That assumption is not supported by the text of the Militia Clauses of the original constitution, which confer upon Congress the power to "organiz[e], ar[m] and disciplin[e] the Militia, Art I sec. 8, but not the power to say who will be members of a state militia."
Heath's extensive study of early Supreme Court case law indicates that the Court found essentially that when Congress acted with regard to the militia, it pre-empted the field, and States at most had the power to enforce the Federal commands and apply the Federal punishments. He points to the one case specifically addressing militia membership, The Mass.
""Organizing" obviously includes the power of determining who shall compose the body known as the militia. The general principle is, that a militia shall consist of the ablebodied male citizens. But this description is too vague and indefinite to be laid down as a practical rule; it requires a provision of positive law to ascertain the exact age, which shall be deemed neither too young nor too old to come within the description. One body of legislators might think the suitable ages would be from 18 to 45 others from 16 to 30 or 40, others from 20 to 50. Here the power is given to the general government to fix the age precisely, and thereby to put an end to doubt and uncertainty; and the power to determine who shall compose the militia, when executed, equally determines who shall not be embraced in it, because all not selected are necessarily excluded.
The question upon the construction of this provision of the Constitution is, whether this power to determine who shall compose the militia is exclusive. And we are of opinion that it is.
. . . . . . .
The general government having authority to determine who shall and who may not compose the militia, and having so determined, the state government has no legal authority to prescribe a different enrolment."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
Collective right per se dead
Instapundit makes an excellent point: the traditional "collective rights theory," i.e., that the 2A was a right of States to have a militia, could not muster a single vote on the Court. (In fact, DC didn't even argue it). And that "collective right theory" was what all of the lower court cases were based on (not that that stops Stevens from claiming their support).
The position "that's been the mainstay of gun-control groups, newspaper editorialists, and lower federal courts for decades, and one that was presented by those adherents as so obviously correct that those arguing for an individual right were called "frauds" and shills for the NRA" couldn't get a single vote.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (19)
Con law scholars on Heller
William van Alstyne, of William and Mary:
“This case is to the Second Amendment what Roe vs. Wade was to abortion,” he said. “That one didn’t settle all the questions, and some people still don’t like it, but it was a watershed, like this one.”
Van Alstyne said the ruling’s “heat and volume” give the opinion added weight – 150 pages of research and dissections of the amendment’s 27 words, broken down phrase by phrase. The justices explored historical context and took into account how Americans spoke and wrote two centuries ago, when the amendment was ratified.
“Some people might try to dismiss it by saying it doesn’t amount to much, but that’s just wrong. This is serious business – a meaningful opinion that will stand for the indefinite future.”
Glenn Harlan Reynolds Instapundit, U of Tenn.:
"But winning in the Supreme Court is just the beginning of the story. Even the biggest civil-rights victories have taken years to percolate through the lower courts, often in the face of foot-dragging or outright resistance from lower-court judges, states and municipalities.
Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation unconstitutional in 1954, but it took a decade or more of slogging to make its promise bear fruit - and even then Congress had to give things a boost by passing the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts.
By contrast, in the 1990s the Supreme Court decided a series of cases narrowing Congress' powers to regulate all sorts of things under the rubric of "interstate commerce." But there were no hordes of public-interest lawyers to pick up on those decisions and bring new cases in the lower courts.
Without that pressure, the lower courts were free to ignore the Supreme Court's efforts to cut back on federal meddling - and that's what they did, to the point that some called it a "constitutional revolution where no one showed up."
If the Supreme Court's Heller decision is not to meet the same fate, Second Amendment enthusiasts will have to start bringing, and carefully litigating, follow-up cases so as to ensure that Second Amendment rights don't wind up championed mostly by "ugly" defendants such as drug dealers facing firearms charges.
Is the gun-rights movement mature enough to follow through on this week's victory? We'll find out."
But UCal Dean Ed Chemerinki is not so happy:
"What then explains the court's decision to strike down the D.C. law? Conservative political ideology. The majority followed prevailing conservative political philosophy and found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns.
This should not be surprising. The conservative justices regularly jettison judicial restraint when it is at odds with conservative politics. They've done the same thing in cases involving affirmative action and desegregation programs.
The irony is that the same conservative justices who were so eager Thursday to find an individual liberty under the 2nd Amendment are loath to do so when a right of a criminal defendant is at stake or when it is a matter of enforcing the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment. Thursday's decision is a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda."
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (10)
Transcript of online chat yesterday
It's online here. Thanks to those who wandered in!
[UPDATE: the key is that the dissenters claim you only have a right to arms if you are in a WELL-REGULATED, with inference by the goverment, militia, which (they don't add) (a) conveniently doesn't exist and (b) certainly wouldn't be created by any jurisdiction that wanted to enact arms restrictions. They don't deal with the question of how much "regulation," recognizing the special meaning of that term, makes a force well-regulated, or whether a court is suited to make that judgment.]
UPDATE: David E. Young posts a comment suggesting reading his books on the 2A. He modestly does not point out that the Court did just that. Scalia cites secondary sources very sparingly, but cites David's book five times, by my casual count. The only other such source that gets in that range is Helen Veit. And Scalia also cites several references to framing period statements that are, to be best of my knowledge, only to be found in David's books. Given the citations in Emerson to his works (what was it, a hundred or so?) David gets the bull's ears and tails in the Second Amendment endgame.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (19)
Heller, women and gays
Ann Althouse suggests that the Heller women's amicus brief may have been abstracted into Scalia's opinion. "The argument about handguns and upper-body strength is explicitly a women's rights argument in at least one brief..." Given the words employed in both, it's convincing to me.
And Gay Patriot suggests that gays decided will benefit from the decision. He argues "I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years..."
Sounds like everyone wins out, except the editorial board of the New York Times. Like its publish, they may already be packing heat. Much the same in California.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
Suit to overturn public housing gun bans in San Francisco
NRA filed one today.
UPDATE: this is first I heard of it. I'm of counsel to Chuck Michel & the guys, but haven't gotten any info. The news report was the first I heard. Understand, I've gotten 580 emails in the last two days, so haven't been playing close attention....
[UPDATE: typo corrected, thanks. got Heller on my mind ]
An odd ad hominem attack on Heller
Over at History News Network. If this is the best the critics can do... it's pathetic. It reduces to undocumented assurances that Heller got it al wrong, and that the individual rights postiion can't be right -- why the first almost-recent (1960) article on it was by a non-historian in a law review.
"or a new theory in any field to have integrity, especially in a subject as well-trodden as the Constitution, it must be subjected to the intense scrutiny, before publication, found in any discipline. But this article, like nearly all others in the field of law, was never submitted to peer review by subject matter experts, the gold standard for evaluating the worthiness of new research and ideas in every other field of study."
I'm glad this "peer review" did such a good job with Bellesiles. At least law reviews look up your footnotes to ensure the author isn't blowing suspensions of carbon particulate up their nether regions. I gather that Bellesiles' peers thought that step not necessary to their review.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (13)
Online chat on Heller today
Leaving now for the Arizona Star offices to do it. 4 PM EDT. You can partipate here.
Prof. Keller on Heller, Justice Breyer and culture wars
He posts over at The Volokh Conspiracy. Interesting point. In an earlier school voucher case, Breyer considered a potential harm to a constitutional interest (that controversial religions might created funded schools, that the public would demand that measures be taken against them, and that that would lead to entanglement of church and state, even if the voucher system itself did not) sufficient to vote to strike a law. No need for opponents of the law to prove probability here; the presumption is that this will occur, or at least that possibility of this is enough.
In Heller, it's the other way around. Instead of guessing/projecting/speculating in favor of the constitutional interest, Breyer does so in favor of considerations weighing against the interest. He notes that DC's crime rate rose after the ban, but then coincidence does not prove causation, and there is no way to know what the crime rate would be without the ban. That'd sound like a reason to strike the ban: constitutional guarantee, and people proposing a restriction cannot show, one way or the other, that the restriction is beneficial or not. But now he says that call is up to the legislature, its enactment and judgment that things are good is presumed correct unless the party supporting the right can disprove it: "the question here is whether they [the arguments] are strong enough to destroy judicial confidence in the reasonableness of a legislature that rejects them. "
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (4)
ACLU's thoughts on Heller
Press release here. Interesting how they treat different rights.
Habeas for Gitmo detainees: a blow to the Bush mad dogs:
"NEW YORK - The Supreme Court ended its 2007 Term by rejecting a centerpiece of the Bush administration's crumbling Guantánamo policy for the third time in four years while recognizing, for the first time in American history, an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment."
Heller: a bit of a constitutional straightjacket for our elected leaders:
"he Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (13)
Website for Chicago gun case
Here it is. Plaintiffs are local residents, the Ill. State Rifle Ass'n and Second Amendment Foundation. Attorneys are Alan Gura and the legal team that won in Heller. They certainly wasted no time!
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (26)
Stevens' dissent--egad!
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."
Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.
I'd add that at 41 he refers to:
"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."
Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)
On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.
And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (59)
Not wasting time....
Ill. State Rifle Assn and NRA have sued to challenge the Chicago handgun ban. And those of its suburbs. Another suit planned against San Francisco.
DC's reaction
Press release here. They propose to declare an amnesty, among other things.
Hat tip to Jack Anderson...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
Thoughts on the Steven dissent
There are two dissents, each joined by the three other Justices in dissent. Stevens' I don't find at all persuasive. He buys the District's argument that "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."
Hmmm.... so that means the people of Arizona can provide that we all get postban M-16s, so long as we enroll? None of that $200 tax, either.
Says that that's the Miller holding, and since then "hundreds of judges" have relied on that. "No new evidence has emerged since 1980" to shake it. I guess he doesn't read the dozens of books and scores of law reviews that did just that.
OK, so "right of the people" is also used in the First and Fourth Amendments. Stevens just proclaims it has a different meaning there.
Attributes the 2A to Antifederalist fears that Congress would not arm or organize the militia, and states would be unable to do so. But, as we pointed out in our Amicus for A2A (as Argument I, hard to miss) Antifederalists had proposals *specifically* to provide that states might arm and organize militias if Congress did not (so they were capable of saying just that, rather than using wording about rights to arms), and these were rejected by Madison and the First Senate (so the Framers wanted no part of them).
Notes that the majority cites the four early great legal commentators, complains that one is a bit late (Cooley in the 1880s), claims that an early one (Tucker) in his lecture notes talked a lot about the militia (Nevermind that in his books he clearly ties the 2A to the individual right, and then goes on at length about the only one who (Story) who talked a lot about the militia. Ignores Rawle, who came before Story, and said the 2A guaranteed that Congress could never disarm the people.
In conclusion, he writes that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago,the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons..." Well, uh, yes, they did. And it's a strange criticism from the most liberal of the Justices. Compare, oh, the Court "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate pornography." Insert, at your option, "abortion," "vulgar language," or whatever.
I thought Scalia was a little hard on the dissent ... but having read this dissent, it's a bit more understandable.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (9)
Gratuitious self serving plug
Just wanted to mention that I distribute the first documentary DVD on the right to arms, In Search of the Second Amendment. Distribution page is here. I suppose.... the Second Amendment has now been found! I'd appreciate if anyone could get the word out. You read the opinion, now see the movie! Sorry, I'm still a bit giddy.
Now to read the dissents.
Skimming Heller decision for key points
30-31: shoots down argument 2A was just meant to allow states to arm militia if feds neglected it. That was addressed by separate state proposals for a BoR, which were rejected by First Congress. "Justice Stevens flatly misreads the historical record.' Yep, this is a Scalia opinion.
48 n. 23. Scalia is no friend to 14th Amendment incorporation, but in this fn., referring to Cruikshank, he noted incorp. isn't presented here, but Cruikshank *also* said first amendment wasn't incorporated, and did not use modern 14th Amendment analysis. He's keeping the door open.
49-50. US v. Miller dealt only with the type of arms that may be possessed: everybody knew the two bank robbers involved were not engaged in a militia exercise. Steven's view is "wrongheaded." Miller flawed, only one side briefed or argued, gov't brief cursory. Cites Miller language that militia were expected to appear with "arms in common use at the time."
53 n. 25. Writes off Lewis v. US. dictum. Wouldn't have hinged major constitutional call in a footnote of dictum where 2A wasn't at issue in case.
54 Limits. Shouldn't read ruling to abolish felon on possession, or carrying in sensitive places like schools and govt buildings, or ordinary restrictions on commerece. Common law allowed restrictions on unusual and deadly weapons. Arms in common use is the key. Fn.26 refers to these as presumptively lawful.
56: "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the second amendment right."
56: Standard of review: ban on entire class of weapons that are overwhelming the choice for self defense violates any standard of review, hence no need to choose. (Inference: strict scrutiny applies to such a ban).
56 n. 27. Standard of review. Rational basis shd only apply where rationality is part of the constitutional restriction; isn't the case with an enumerated right. Citing Carolene Products. Cites first amendment alongside second.
57: Accepts argument made in women's brief that people without upper body strength need a handgun, and it can be pointed at burglar while one dials 911.
62: lights into Breyer's dissent for proposing simple balancing test. No other enumerated right's core protection is tested this way. The balance was struck by Americans when they adopted the 2A.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (15)
HELLER WIN!
Reading the opinion (150 pgs with dissents) now. Scalia writes. It's 5-4, the majority signing the one opinion, no concurrences or fragmentation. Individual right not linked to militia service. No need to settle standard of review, since a complete ban on a wide class of arms fails all of them. DC ordered to allow Heller to register his handgun and carry it in his home.
Side note that this does not cast doubt upon felon in possession, etc., or bans within narrow sensitive areas such as courts and schools.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (43)
FLA court delays challenge to parking lot self defense
Story here. Florida enacted a requirement that employers allow CCW permittees to leave firearms in a locked car in their parking lots, the Chamber of Commerce filed a challenge, and the judge ruled that he had some other, more serious matters, to attend to, come back in July.
The mystery to me is: it's a federal suit. Where's the federal issue? The only thing the story discusses is a claim that, since it only applies to businesses that have at least one CCW licensed employee, it's somehow hard to determine whether you are covered, that makes it "irrational" and thus unconstitutional. As the saying goes, I hope they didn't take that case on a contingency.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (5)
Next National Firearms Law Seminar set for Phoenix, May 2009
Click here for date and location; more details coming later. What with the decision tommorrow, there will be plenty to talk about!
Gun blogger vote
Just a reminder that there's still time to cast your vote in the ParaUSA competition for best gun blog. Voters have a chance to win a 1911 and a weekend of training. Just click here to vote.
"Fractured decisions"
Happened today in Giles v. California. Scalia wrote for the Court except as to part D(2) of the decision, but only he signed the main opinion. Three Justices concurred in it entirely, and two more concurred as to all but D(2). Which means that while (D)(2) is in the main opinion, it didn't get five votes. Three dissents. The concurrences seem to be full concurrences -- i.e., "I agree with all Scalia said, but just want to add something." The other version is concur in the result -- i.e., "I agree that the decision below should be affirmed or reversed, but do not agree with the main opinion's reasoning. I have a different reason, or maybe a much narrower version of the the main opinion says.
Interesting, too, is the use of history. Souter and Ginsberg's concurrence argues that the result is just, and doesn't look to history: " Equity demands something more than this near circularity before the right to confrontation is forfeited, and more is supplied by showing intent to prevent the witness from testifying. Cf. Davis v. Washington, 547 U. S. 813, 833 (2006) .
It is this rationale for the limit on the forfeiture exception rather than a dispositive example from the historical record that persuades me that the Court’s conclusion is the right one in this case. The contrast between the Court’s and Justice Breyer’s careful examinations of the historical record tells me that the early cases on the exception were not calibrated finely enough to answer the narrow question here. The historical record as revealed by the exchange simply does not focus on what should be required for forfeiture when the crime charged occurred in an abusive relationship or was its culminating act; today’s understanding of domestic abuse had no apparent significance at the time of the Framing, and there is noearly example of the forfeiture rule operating in that circumstance."
Breyer's dissent (joined by Kennedy and Stevens) does invoke history, including British pre-1776 cases, American 19th century cases (" An 1856 Georgia case, relying on Lord Morley’s Case, held that a similar “examination should be read” if the witness “was detained by means or procurement of the prisoner.”"), and early 19th century textbooks. It'll be interesting to see how Stevens and Breyer treat history tommorrow.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Background on interpretation
Just as a background to Armageddon... there are several schools of thought as to how you interpret a constiutional or statuory provision, and we may see them all in play tommorrow. Note that a judge may use one of them, or a mixture, or explain his/her position by saying it's justified under more than one. One approach you'll rarely see is "living constitution." It may be the underlying thought, but to come out and say it is a bit too obvious. Main approaches:
1) Textualism (a favorite of Scalia). The words mean what they say, and unless hopelessly muddled, there is no reason to study the writer's intent. After all, the legislature or the people voted on the words, not on the drafter's intent.
2) Original purpose/understanding (a favorite of Thomas, and well suited to combine with textualism). On a constitutional level this started out as original intent -- what did the constitutional convention, of the First Congress, intend to do? Given limited records, this can be difficult to judge, but we must do our best to carry out their intent. (As Gene Volokh points out, if you want to adjust or repair a machine, you go to the manufacturer's manual to understand how it was meant to work. The Framers created a very good machine for manufacturing laws).
This evolved into original public understanding. After all, it was the people of the US as a whole who gave life to the constitutional provisions, via convention or legislative ratification. Let's look to what they understood things to mean. The records of the constitutional convention and the Framer's private letters weren't available to the people then, and are accordingly less important (except to the extent they, like anyone's letters, suggest what people in general thought). Now we can consider newspaper articles, letters, and even things written after the ratification, so long as it's unlikely that popular views as to meaning had changed.
3) Pragmatism. Don't sit there with a grammar book trying to parse the words. Figure out what the drafters meant to do by it, and construe their words so as to make that outcome more likely. They probably weren't all that careful about word choice anyway. They just said "freedom of speech" and didn't bother to explain what exceptions there are, did they mean the 1776 British idea of it, something much broader, or what?
As one fellow said--you can argue for any of these standards, and maybe the most we can expect is that a judge will stick to one or a fixed combination of them, and not be textualist when it yields a desired result, then switch to pragmatism in a different case because that gives the desired result.
(I leave off other approached, such as Prof. Levinson's argument that we have an unwritten consttution as well as a written one, the unwritten may add to our freedoms but not negate them, since these aren't likely to play a role in Heller).
Personal feelings -- they can play a role in all of this. I suspect at a subsconscious level. You're apt to be enthusiastic about rights you personally value. They play a much bigger role when you get down to what is allowable regulation. How strict is the standard? That's entirely up in the air, with no hard rules. If it's the strictest standard, what is a "compelling" government interest, and does this properly address it? Hard to make that judgment without be affected by your underlying beliefs that gun control is generally nice, or generally stupid policy. If you're on the Court and a porn case comes up, it's going to be hard to decide whether this particular movie is OK or not without being affected by whether you feel porn is sociallly corrupting, or is harmless, and whether you're hard to shock anyway.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (6)
No Heller today, should be tommorrow
Court had seven opinions left, announced four of them today (including no death penalty for child rape, and limiting punitives in Exxon-Valdez under maritime law). Three left for tommorrow: Heller, a campaign finance case, and one on energy contracts. Hope it's a good day for the First and Second Amendments!
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (10)
Prof. O'Shea on Heller and Scalia
Over at Concurring Opinions. Perceptive, as always.
Tommorrow we'll know, or maybe not. Seven opinions left. The Court will either announce Heller... or not, and set one more day for opinion release (probably tho not certainly Thursday).
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (11)
Curse of the gunnies, pt. 203...
February 2008: Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon hosts the regional meeting of Bloomberg's Mayors' group, where "mayors discussed the escalating crime trends."
June 2008: Baltimore mayor Sheila Dickson is the subject of a search warrant and grand jury probe into corruption. Thousands of dollars in unreported gifts from a developer who got city contracts, zoning changes, and tax breaks.
Didn't take long....
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Teacher goes wacko over student talking of hunting
In Vermont, of all places. Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · animal rights and eco-terrorism · Comments (7)
NJ case strikes gun rationing
Scott Bach reports on it. The court found that that the Jersey City statute failed the "rational basis" test, which is pretty hard to flunk.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (4)
Living Constitution dilemma
According to a recent survey, 64% of Americans believe that a city handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, far outnumbering the 26% who either don't believe in an individual right, or reason that a ban wouldn't violate it. Even among non-gunowners, the 2A prevails by 3/2, or 50% to 35%.
This of course poses problems for the concept of a "living Constitution," at least one that would consider the beliefs of the American people (or the States, or Congress). A concept that ignores all those is all to clearly one of "the Bill of Rights contains only things that a sitting judge likes."
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · General con law · Comments (4)
Trying to read Heller tea leaves
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy they're trying read the tea leaves.
Court's custom is to ensure each Justice gets to write at least one majority opinion from each "sitting," i.e., a month worth of oral arguments. Of the March sitting, coming into today, only Souter and Scalia had not had that privilege, and today Souter got one, leaving only Scalia. Maybe Heller will be his, meaning Heller clearly wins. I'd add that that also means the division of votes was firm from the beginning. Scalia's outspoken style is less likely to draw additional Justices in than is, for example, that of CJ Roberts. If there was a chance to pull an additional vote in from whoever is dissenting or concurring, it seems likely to me that Roberts would have kept the opinion for himself.
Gene Volokh wonders, if Scalia does get the opinion, whether a dissent he filed Thursday might presage a point he'd make -- that he (being a textualist) declines to go with the concept that a right's wording may be disregarded if doing so would serve its purpose. I.e., that purpose cannot overcome wording. I think that may be a bit of a stretch.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
No Heller op today
They issued ops in three other cases. Seven left, I think.
Deadline on comments, guns in national parks rule
The deadline for comments on allowing CCW in National Parks if the holder complies with State rules is June 30. You can comment by going here. A reader whom I met at the Backlot Film Festival adds the following suggestions:
Your comments will have the most impact if you use your own words. To assist you in drafting your comments, keep the following points in mind:
Rules on carrying and transporting firearms should be consistent-across the board-with the laws of the state that includes the national park or wildlife refuge;
Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges;
The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners;
Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws. Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead, and;
The new regulations should restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for all lawful purposes on most DOI lands, just as they do now on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands
His own comment is in extended remarks, below.
Continue reading "Deadline on comments, guns in national parks rule"
Musings on gun issues and political labels
Saw an article, not good enough to merit a link, which referred to NRA and "right wing gun nuts."
Set me to wondering: why would the Second Amendment be seen as "right wing" and calls for more gun control concisely be seen as "left wing," or conservative and liberal, respectively.
Orwell was decidedly on the British left, yet had considerable respect for individual arms ownership. I see this as quite consistent: the working class should have arms for its defense, and almost all disarmament schemes exempt corporation's security guards, so gun control disarms the worker while arming capital, in a left view.
The gun control cause is hardly consistent with other liberal/left assumptions about the world, e.g., the First Amendment. There the assumption is that if the government has power, it will abuse it for its own political ends. As to most civil (i.e., noneconomic) liberties, the same assumption holds true, with the additional Jeffersonian view that the individual is the best judge of his/her needs. If anything gun control would be more consistent with social conservativism, i.e., with John Adams rather than Tom Jefferson: the individual is not by nature virtuous, they are made so by social norms and government). Yet the social conservatives tend to oppose it.
Assune that man is not logical, but psychological. I think certain segments of the modern American left have an emotion-based dislike of that which is traditionally American, and most segments of the modern American right have emotional like of that which is traditionally American. An aspect of what Neitzsche called decadence, using it in a special term: a great fondness for that which is strange, foreign, not-you. Perhaps even the terms used give clues. "Liberal" is now in decline, perhaps since it sounds pro-freedom and open-minded. "Progressive" is rising as a self-descriptor, with its suggestion the the American status quo is at the very least not good enough (and no hint of open-mindedness; only the stupid or evil could resist progress.) Here, non-American is good and anti-American even better; you must tolerate beliefs you would repudiate here (oppressing women, killing gays, mandating religion, violence over trifling things) if they are undertaken by an "other."
Thoughts?
Permalink · Politics · Comments (33)
Update on July 11 Chicago rally
Flyer and updated map for rally here. July 11, 11 AM-1PM. Featured speaker Sunanna Hupp, who is one fine speaker. Her father was killed in the Luby's Cafeteria killings in TX some years ago (when the state banned concealed carry, and open carry unless "travelling," which was undefined) and her experience and advocacy played a role in the state changing its law.
Head of AEY, Inc. arrested over ammo sales
Story here. The allegations are that the militiary ordered AK ammo from him, for issuance to friendlies in Afghanistan, and had in place an order forbidding sale to the government of Chinese made ammo, and that he apparently relabeled lots of Chinese ammo to reflect that it was made elsewhere.
Longer story here. Apparently millions of dollars worth of ammo were involved.
FSA seems to expect defeat in Heller
Now Freedom States Alliance (sponsor of the antigun "Gun Guys" website, and receipient of major Joyce Foundation funding) foresees its defeat in Heller.
"Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the looming case, District of Columbia v. Heller, about whether DC's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, there is no doubt that effective gun control measures can, and should, be enacted to save lives from gun violence."
Hat tip to reader Josh Berger....
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
Two handed grip = any other weapon?
Say Uncle posts on a court ruling that a pistol with a vertical forend grip is not "any other weapon" under the NFA.
"Any other weapon" requires application and registration, as with a machine gun, altho the transfer tax is only $5 as I recall. It's a legal quirk that originates in the history of the NFA. NFA as introduced in Congress would not only have covered MGs and short barrels, but also handguns (at the $5 rate). To prevent quibbling over what was a handgun, it added and any other gun capable of concealment on the person. Congress stripped the handgun part out, but forgot to take out and any other weapon. So all the obscure palm guns and cane guns and anything that isn't really rifle, shotgun or pistol, has to be registered. ATF's position. ATF takes by regulation the position that a pistol is a gun intended to be fired from one hand, and so putting a vertical forend on a pistol makes it a two handed gun, and AOW rather than a pistol. From his report, a court has ruled this isn't so.
Congress sometimes does nobody (gun owner, ATF, or anyone else) any favors when it writes law. Esp. laws that wind up governing very obscure firearms. A .44 mag is just a gun. A .32 rimfire palm gun that uses ammo not made in near a century, and which its owner wouldn't dare fire for fear of breaking a part and reducing its value, winds up with federal registration, send in your fingerprints for a full FBI check, etc.
Hat tip to Sebastian...
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (6)
Brady on Heller outcome
Video here, Quite a series of retreats. Claims that the federal courts are right wingers, hopes that gun laws that don't inhibit self-defense will survive, acknowledgments that the case was carefully planned, etc. Griping about Justice Kennedy's questions? Brady is engaged in a MASSIVE retreat, on the eve of any decision. Perhaps a leak? Perhaps an educated guess? I don't know.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (17)
Pro-gun rally in Chicago, July 11
Flyer here. If you have dialup, try here's a smaller file.
Dr. Suzanna Hupp -- who is one compelling speaker -- will address the rally.
Hat tip to Carl in Chicago, of course!
Modern legal scholarship
Here's a synopsis of an upcoming Villanova L. Rev. article. It isn't often that I can read a synopsis of an article and have not the foggiest what it is saying---
"Engaging with Michael Seidman’s contribution to the symposium, I close the essay in suggesting that when, as in Mark Tushnet’s suggestive orientation to “the Other” just before the end of the essay “Defending Korematsu?,” he sees the Other face to face, he extends an invitation to read in his most recent constitutional law scholarship a resurgence of the orientation to Others that was the ground of his scholarly work, and thus to conclude that one does not have to move from the realm of hermeneutics to that of metaphor, as Seidman suggests is necessary, to identify his commitment to what is paradoxically a certain kind of “thick” constitutionalism, which conceives of it as something more than a bare practice for allocating political power in the nation-state, necessarily implying some ethical engagement between subjects who govern and those who are governed.
That commitment is premised on a “thin constitution” that promises two things. First, that it might shield us and Others from at least the worst excesses of the violence of state tyranny. Second, it encodes what may be cynical rhetoric, aspirational constitutive national text, denial that is admission of the originary national pathology that eats out the nation’s core, or all of these things. That is, a commitment to equality in a nation with a government which Thurgood Marshall called “defective from the start,” founded on chattel slavery and persistently unwilling to address that inheritance from the Founders, a pervasive structural subordination of Others that imbricates its fiber yet."
Permalink · General con law · Comments (6)
"Shooting Liberally"
An interesting NYC group. I doubt they're a false flag; they seem more interested in shooting than in politics. My good friend Mark Benenson, a Krag collector who wrote law reviews against gun control many years ago, was former Chairman of Amnesty International's US branch. He remarked that Amnesty's leadership was appalled to find that their US Chairman was a gun collecting NRA lifer.
UPDATE: Mark told me that Amnesty was so concerned that they tried to create a rival US branch, but that didn't work out.
Gun laws to be less restrictive in New South Wales
Article here. Looks as if, as is common in parliamentary systems, the largest party is still slightly less than a majority. And pro-gun Members formed their own party, the Shooters' Party, which is just enough to give the dominant party a majority if it votes with them.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (5)
Article on the Chicago handgun ban
In the Chicago Tribune.
"But what's not often reported by the decidedly pro-gun-control media is that since Chicago's anti-handgun law went into effect in 1982, only two classes of people have had ready access to firearms:
The criminals. And the politicians."
"My favorite example from previous columns is the case of Anthony "Spittles" Pizzirulli, a top Democratic Machine precinct captain. Spittles was a city foreman when he was discovered at one of the top hotels in Chicago, the Ritz Carlton, in a $760-per-night room, though he made $51,000 a year.
A hotel busboy noticed that Spittles had a gun. And what a gun it was. Police found it, and noticed its serial numbers had been filed off—a federal offense the last time I checked. They also found recreational drugs.
In the lockup, Spittles kept insisting—gun or no gun—that he'd walk in a few minutes. But not before he spit on a female sergeant, told her to find another female to have sex with and made rude comments to other cops who wanted to slap him."
Sure enough, in walked another politician, and he was out of the cell, charges apparenlty dismissed.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Nothing in Heller today
Court announced six or seven ops this morning, leaving ten to go. Next opinion day is Monday. Court is considered likely to add on an extra opinion day -- ten in one day is more than it likes to issue.
Of cases argued in Feb. two remain, and of March, two, incl. Heller. As often is the case, they save the controversial ones for last (one Feb. case is the punitive damages in Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and for March there's Heller). I suppose with the controversial ones, there's a lot of internal negotiation, additions to opinions to answer the opposing opinions, and stress on getting it nearly perfect.
The Court CAN put over a ruling until its next Term (October) but I think it's a very rare event.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
Bob Barr's candidacy
Here's a good post on it.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (15)
Brady Campaign not satisifed with California
Brady Campaign apparently considers California's many gun laws as just too lax: ""We make it too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons,” said Kay Holmen, President of the CA Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."
Of course they're hard put to find something CA hasn't already enacted, so they propose (1) ammunition registration and (2) a requirement that guns be personalized so only their owner can use them. As I recall, the latter technology doesn't exist, but that's no bar to their making it a requirement.
Hmmm-- here's a PDF of the latter bill. I don't know how much of this is current law, but it has not only personalization but design requirements such as loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, a feature to imprint serial no. on each fired cartridge.
Ah--and an exemption for guns used as movie props! These are supposed to be safety measures, yet movie sets get an exemption.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (12)
Chris Cox interviewed re: Heller
Gunvaluesboard has a steps of the Court video interview of Chris Cox of ILA in regards the Heller case.
The Court's next day for announcing decisions is tommorrow, starting at 10 AM EDT. I'll be up early and watching for it, altho I'd agree that the last decision day (Monday unless they add another one) is more likely. This is one every Justice wants to have as nearly perfect as possible, and the drafts of opinions may be moving back and forth, not to mention negotiation: "I'll sign the opinion if you'll take that footnote out, I just don't agree on that point."
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (13)
Commas in the Second Amendment
An interesting paper over at GMU's The Green Bag.
It points out that even at the time of the ratification, there were versions with one, two, and three commas, and that since Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court have varied in their usage. The bottom line is that there were no photocopy machines back then, and scribes who hand copied documents punctuated and capitalized as they thought best.
[Note that The Green Bag is a lighthearted legal publication: the ending suggestion that we settle the issue by picking the version we want and re-ratifying it is not meant to be taken seriously]
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
Permalink · Second Amendment wording · Comments (15)
Crime in South Africa
A doctor's look. Pretty horrifying.
Good thing they have such strict gun laws, otherwise things would get out of hand.
"Obviously, we're making an impact," said Judy Bassingthwaite, the national director of the leading lobby for curbs on gun ownership, Gun Free South Africa. "That's very good news."
UPDATE: Wooter in South Africa comments, in a comment blocked by the spam filter (and this time it has me totally baffled):
Yes, it's great that criminals can't get guns in SA. Keeps us all safe. Especially from the toy guns which we are all so scared of.
me goes off to play with his warm fuzzy wuzzy wabbit.
Sarcasm off. :-)
VA to pay settlement in VA Tech shootings
Story here.
UPDATE: suits for wrongful death are created by statute (at common law, if you were dead you couldn't sue, and your survivors had no right to, either, because they hadn't been directly hurt). The statutes are sometimes rather narrow -- rather than recovering for a lifetime of lost wages, some say you recover only what the deceased would have likely given you -- which will be high for a child of the deceased, but low for a parent. [Further update: I can't figure out the theory of liability, either, and that probably had a lot to do with the amount. Maybe failure to commit the shooter after finding him dangerous? But those decisions are usually immune from suit].
Off topic, but I once read a law rev. on how the statutes came to be. In early railroading days, 1840s or so, there were a lot of accidents and deaths. Train crashes and people getting hit, because folks were not used to gauging the speed of things that fast.
Nobody could sue, so the railroads shirked it off. Then some enterprising British attorneys applied the common law deodand (think I spelled it right) under which if farm animal killed a man, it was forfeited to his family. They won, and the locomotive was forfeited to his family, and the RR had to buy it back. I think deodand was strict liability, not negligence. The animal, or locomotive, killed someone and is forfeit -- whether the owner was negligent or not made no difference.
RRs got most disturbed, and got legislation passed which abolished deodand, in exchange for letting survivors sue for damages in wrongful death. It was a lot cheaper to pay damages than to buy back a locomotive every time it hit someone!
More on Red's Trading Post
They're relocating, since the city is buying its present location. Sounds as if they figure they'll stay in business.
Hat tip to reader Clark Myers
Op-Ed on Parker/Heller
Bob Levy has an Op-Ed in the Washington Times.
VPC and a Joyce clone attacking Justice Alito
Right here. I like the way they style his dissent in a 2-1 Circuit ruling as "the lone dissenter." On a three judge panel, that's the only way you can be a dissenter. Page is sponsored by Freedom States Alliance (and in contradiction to that name, complains of his "extremely restrictive view of Congressional regulatory power."), which is a Joyce Foundation clone, and cites Violence Policy Center (another Joyce clone).
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Suit against Torrance CA over CCW refusal
Pdf of the complaint here. Plaintiff is a city employee whose job requires carrying large sums of cash, and whose employing agency endorsed his application for a CCW permit. The Torrance chief of police turned it down, stating it was his policy not to issue permits, period. The suit also challenges city policies that, if it ever did issue permits, requires the applicant to have a million dollar insurance policy, and pass psychological testing.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (6)
Interesting thoughts on Supremes
Article here. Theme is that the Presidential candidates act as if the Court were composed of four minimialist conservatives (McCain's ideal), four empathic liberals (Obama's ideal) and Justice Kennedy moving back and forth, when it's much more complex than that.
"Court watchers have stood dumbfounded all spring as the high court rejected and renounced the 5 to 4 conservative-liberal splits that seemed to have calcified after last term's bitter divisions. The end of June 2007 saw a full third of the court's cases decided by a 5 to 4 margin; as of this writing, the court has decided just four cases that way this year. At this point last year, Kennedy had cast his vote with the prevailing five justices every single time. But this term has seen a slew of ideology-busting unanimous, 7 to 2, and 6 to 3 decisions, which have not just baffled the experts but also made the usual end-of-term chatter about "activists," "minimalists" and "strict constructionists" sound as old-fashioned as the Bee Gees."
Of course the article seeks personal or tactical reasons, rather than the simplest explanation: for some Justices, at least, history and the law are primary motivators, and liberal vs. conservative policy labels only fit in certain cases.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (1)
nothing in Heller today
Next day to announce opinions is Thursday.
Calling Dr. Freud
From the Boston Globe":
"The naughty thrill of reaching under the socks, the shock of actually touching the thing, finding it cold, as if on ice. Such is my memory of furtive encounters with my father's handgun. At the time, Dad was an FBI agent. Where he stowed his weapon when off-duty was absolutely out-of-bounds, which defined its appeal.....
Even at age 4, I was hypnotized by a gun. The gun was a mystical object, with significance that far transcended any imagined use. Fear, but also consolation. Awe. Trembling. That the gun was my father's was a first clue to potency. Hidden away, yet the gun sent a pulse through the whole apartment, a psychological electromagnet around which my awareness swirled. Long before I tasted the temptations of sex, I yielded to an irresistible prurience by opening that drawer. ,,,"
I must admit that, at age 10 or so, I handled my father's deer rifle, a converted Springfield 03, without permission. But I knew the code. Open the bolt, check the magazine, peer up into the chamber, stick your little finger in to make sure. Never trembled nor had some strange pulse thru the entire house, nor in later years considered it like sex (nevermind the comparisons to full auto, let alone those to full auto fire).
Can't help but wonder if the antigunners' argument has some Freudian resemblance to rather puritanical arguments about sexuality. The rationale isn't that something is sociallty harmful, or that the harm could be averted by restricting harmful misuse, but that someone, somewhere, is having disapproved fun.
(With recognition that this does injustice to the puritans, who had nothing against drinking -- witness Cromwell, who loved good wine, nor shooting, nor sex at least in marriage, witness their enormous families and also prosecutions for fornication ). Actually, esp. in places like modernday Boston, the puritans' real views come off as quite libertatian.
If it would save even one life...
Story here. In California, unarmed passers-by come upon man fatally beating a toddler, and are unable to stop him. He is stopped only when officers arrive and shoot him.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Heller brief
Just as an experiment, I had 50 copies of the A2A brief reproduced, for less than the printer charged ($10 each, as I recall!). If you'd like one autographed by your humble servant, as a memento of the case, just click on the link in the left margin. If there is any major interest, I'll suggest to coauthor Joe Olson that A2A do it en masse, and suggest to other progun groups that they reproduce theirs, as well. If you'd like a custom autograph, just email me. If you'd just like to read it, a pdf version is online here.
NJ legislative commmittee reports out .50 cal ban
NRA press release here. Legislation in pdf here.
I can't say how much of this is already NJ law, but as I read it also (1) bans muzzleloaders above .60 caliber (meaning you can have Civil War but not Revolutionary War re-enactments and even with CW can't use .69 muskets) and (2) may ban or at least define as firearms pellet guns, scuba spear guns, and slingshots.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Sheriff protests Jesse Jackson protest at DS Arms
Story here.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Prof. O'Shea on Heller
Over at Concurring Opinions, Prof Mike O'Shea has his take on what to watch for. It's quite detailed, and I can't think of anything unsaid that might be added.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
LA Times -- NRA's clout waning?
Understand, I've been reading stories that NRA power is declining since the 1970s. As its membership went from 600,000 to 4-5-6 times that, the stories kept coming. But this one is a chuckle. It argues that NRA's power is waning because gun owners have completely defeated the opposition!
"Congress hasn't passed major legislation to restrict gun use in 14 years. Democrats -- scarred by past NRA campaigns -- almost never talk about the issue anymore.
And Americans now show little interest in gun control. Just half want tougher rules for gun sales, compared with nearly two-thirds in 2000.
"The issue has been essentially removed from the political agenda," said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York in Cortland who has written extensively about the politics of gun control.
This marks a major victory for gun rights groups, which less than a decade ago were fending off demands from both Democrats and Republicans for strict new limits on gun ownership after the 1999 Columbine school shootings."
It goes on -- 40 states have right to carry, gun manufacturer protection was passed, the assault weapon ban not renewed, the Sureme Court is likely to find the 2A is an individual right....
OK, how to argue that's bad news for the gun rights movement?
Uh ... because gun control is almost a non-issue, the Times says, it's hard to swing elections based on it. I suppose it wouldn't occur to the Times that for groups with causes winning elections is not an end, but a means to an end.
Hat tip to a strong 2A supporter, in LA of all places, whom I met at the Backlot Film Festival...
Permalink · media · Comments (14)
Brady Campaign--more on Heller
Check out the Brady Campaign Blog. It's a generic discussion of their top dog, Paul Helmke's surrender in Heller.
It sounds a little bit embarassed.
That would be understandable. After all, earlier this year Helmke posted of the "the long-standing view of virtually every Federal court – that the Second Amendment has an obvious militia purpose, and is no barrier to the adoption of gun control laws by legislative bodies..." They've long argued that view. In fact their main webpage still has Helmke saying he's confident they will win. And of course they fundraised off Heller.
And now he's announced they are totally hosed. They're going to lose in the Court, and they've already lost in the minds of Americans, by a 75% vote.
I can't help but wonder -- what Justice is going to want to sign onto an opinion going his way, now? The Court has to be deeply concerned about its reputation. It's got no appropriations power, no police, no miltiary. It depends on respect in a way the other two branches do not. Who would want to sign on to an opinion taking a position, where its chief advocate just publicly confessed that it's a loser, not only in the courts, but in minds of 3/4 of Americans?
UPDATE: I think SCOTUSBlog's statpack reflects, for cases not yet decided, a "best guess" as to who writes the opinion, based on which side they think will win and who, on the likely majority, is about due to be assigned an opinion. The latest is the June 9 edition, and I looked up some June 12 opinions. Two out of three had authors other than the ones listed in the statpack. I think the real assignments are kept as quiet as the opinions, since often, as in this case, if you know the assignment you know the outcome.
Permalink · Parker v. DC ~ · antigun groups · Comments (17)
Civil War incident
The NRA was founded, as a friend pithily put it, "to teach Yankees how to shoot Southerners" -- the critical event being when the Union officer who would found it discovered that not one of his men could hit a barrel-head at moderate distance. (He also discovered that there was no American military manual on shooting, in terms of hitting a mark. The manuals described stance, but not aiming, etc.)
This memoir by an Iowa infantryman illustrates the problem faced. Understand, the Confederate is so close to them they can understand his shout, and a company (about 60 men in practice, probably more here since it was a new regiment) get in two rounds:
"We expected them to take to their heels, but no, not only did they not fly, but one of them flung himself on a white horse, rode directly at us, and when within shooting distance, hopped off his mount and promptly fired. I happened to be in the front rank, and I noticed the bullet as it glanced off the branch of a tree, and rolled harmlessly at my feet. We answered in kind, but it made no further impression than to have the bold rider fling forth, "You may shoot, you — Yankees, but you can’t hit me anyhow." Then spoke up Silas N. Lee (Editor's note) of Nevada, threateningly, "Look out! Look out!", and we fired another volley, but the gay daredevil was off like the wind."
He also details one forgotten risk... they're ordered to empty their muskets by firing them, it was raining and he'd forgotten to remove the tompion that plugged the barrel, and when he fired it split the barrel.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (2)
Brady Campaign hoists the white flag on 2A?
From ABC News comes one of the most remarkable political concessions I've heard in my life, and a statement I'd never expected to see in three decades of Second Amendment work:
GUN CONTROL GROUP BRACES FOR COURT LOSS
The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, DC. But with the Supreme Court posed to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Vioence fully expects to lose.
We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."
"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side." If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment. "The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.
Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, "curbing large volume sales," i.e., one gun a month.
Leaving aside whether those would pass muster ... how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I'd wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a "good start" rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month -- that they'd never get beyond that -- they might well bail out.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (21)
Heads up for FFLs who sell to California FFLs
California has enacted a new silly statute: before shipping to a CA dealer, you must obtain a verification and approval from the State Bureau of Firearms. Effective date July 1.
I say silly, because the object is to verify that the recipient has an FFL. But, under Federal, before a licensee ships to another FFL, he has to get and keep a copy of the other FFL's license. And if there is any doubt, he can verify the FFL via ATFE's website.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (21)
No opinion in Heller today
Gitmo detainees and four other cases. With 22 cases going in, that leaves 17 to be decided. Next day for opinion releases will be Monday.
But I do like it when the Court goes on a historical bent (and not just because that makes odds of a Heller win higher). Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court in one of the Gitmo cases is great on this. It traces the history of habeas corpus, and here's a short sample:
"The Government argues, in turn, that Guantanamo is
more closely analogous to Scotland and Hanover, territories
that were not part of England but nonetheless controlled
by the English monarch (in his separate capacities
as King of Scotland and Elector of Hanover). See Cowle, 2
Burr., at 856, 97 Eng. Rep., at 600. Lord Mansfield can be
cited for the proposition that, at the time of the founding,
English courts lacked the “power” to issue the writ to
Scotland and Hanover, territories Lord Mansfield referred
to as “foreign.” Ibid. But what matters for our purposes is
why common-law courts lacked this power. Given the
English Crown’s delicate and complicated relationships
with Scotland and Hanover in the 1700’s, we cannot disregard
the possibility that the common-law courts’ refusal to
issue the writ to these places was motivated not by formal
legal constructs but by what we would think of as prudential
concerns. This appears to have been the case with
regard to other British territories where the writ did not
run. See 2 R. Chambers, A Course of Lectures on English
Law 1767–1773, p. 8 (T. Curley ed. 1986)"
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (0)
PA busts for open, legal, carry
Snowflakes in Hell has the story. As I can read it, a group of open carry activists ate dinner, one or more was arrested (in a state where open carry is legal), and they filed suit.
Fun with a Thompson
Video here.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (3)
Josh Horowitz on the situation in Mexico
Over at the Huffington Post. It's one of the fad arguments: American guns are being used by the drug gangs there, so America needs to change its laws.
One wonders ... how do the guns get there? Answer: slip the border guard a small sum (used to be $10, now I've heard it's $20, weakening dollar affects everything) and he doesn't look in the trunk of your car. You can import dozens of guns for $20.
I've had a few stolen, and I'd be 80% sure they went south, with a modest tip at the border.
I had a friend who went down there with a buddy. After passing the border, the buddy opened his trunk and inside was an unregistered Thompson. The friend went ballistic -- a full auto in a military caliber? They crucify us! Don't worry, said the buddy. Turned out it was a birthday gift for a police official, who loved it and let all the other police handle it.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
Ohio castle doctrine signed into law
Story here.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (11)
The (anti)Gun Guys at it again
To properly terrorize their audience, they post video of A Magpul Industries guy demonstrating an invention, a prototype. It looks like a large billfold, but unfolds into a shoulder-stocked full auto Glock.
They add "all the company would have to do to legally sell the weapon is convert it from a fully automatic machine gun into a semi-automatic assault rifle..." No mention that it would then be a short-barreled rifle, within the scope of the National Firearms Act, meaning to buy one you have to secure BATF approval, after submission of photo, fingerprints, the tax, and an endorsement from the chief of your local law enforcement agency or chief prosecutor.
Hat tip to reader Josh Berger...
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (11)
Taser loses liability suit
Story was here, but a comment made a good point--why link to a Bloomberg story? They lost a federal verdict for a million in actuals plus five mill in punitives. Officers used several Tasers on a fellow who was apparently high on meth. and his heart stopped. The jury found for the officers, but against Taser, on the theory that it had inadequately warned users against risks. Sounds thin to me, but the jury bought it.
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (7)
Quite a case
Appellate opinion here, in pdf.
Defendant was prosecuted for tax evasion (and got ten years) and for soliciting the murder of government officials (and got 33 years for that). Key witness to the latter testified he was a Marine vet, served in secret missions in or after the Korean War, had a purple heart and silver star, and when challenged, pulled out the service paperwork to prove it all. It was discovered that he'd forged the paperwork, enlisted years after the Korean War ended, had no service in Korea, his only injury was a car crash in the US. Motion for new trial denied ... and the Court of Appeals reverses the denial. It notes that prosecutors knew a lot of his story was fishy, and kept mum on it.
Amusing hoax and gullible media
Here's the story of "The Arm the Homeless Coalition"
It sent out press releases with pics of a guy in a Santa suit with a sign reading "100 percent of contributions will be used to provide desperately needed protection for our country’s homeless." The Columbus Dispatch editorialized against the group, the story was picked up by AP, Rush Limbaugh, and others, newspapers buzzed with angry letters to the editor.
And as you might guess, it was a hoax. Apparently, the idea has been tried elsewhere with similar results.
Continue reading "Amusing hoax and gullible media"
Permalink · humor · Comments (0)
CCW bans in churches
Many CCW permit systems forbid licensees to carry in certain locations -- bars, courthouses, etc.. A fair number of these have a prohibition on carry in churches. Jack Burton has some interesting thoughts on this, and principles of separation of church and state.
Basically: (1) what makes a church special in a way that, say a VFW hall is not? (2) The response has to be that a church is a holy nonprofit group's home, and the legislature judges that packing a gun in there would be an offense to the Almighty. Apart from being rather presumptuous (the Almighty may like guns, and who is a legislature to define his tastes) doesn't that sound a bit like an entanglement of church and state?
Thanks to reader Rick Schwartz for the tip...
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (9)
College pro-2A groups expanding
Article here. I was impressed that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has quickly mustered 30,000 members.
And related news: Hillsdale College, in Michigan, has built a 71-acre shooting range and plans gun storage lockers for students. That's the spirit!
Vote for top gun bloggers
You can cast your vote here. The top ten vote getters receive a ParaUSA pistol and a weekend of training with Todd Jarrett. Everyone casting a vote gets entered in a raffle for the same weekend training (and maybe the pistol, I'm not clear there).
Obama's proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school
Reader Henry Bowman had a comment blocked by the spam filter, and merits a separate post. He writes:
"Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America." is more than just a little exaggeration.
You think so? Let's go to the website of somebody who has done the homework you should have done.
Check out the map there, and the other maps linked on that page. Every one of those dots is merely 1,000 feet in radius -- the size of the current "school zone" for the federal law.
Now imagine that each dot is 26 times bigger! Where do the gun stores fit, Steve?
I once lived in a small Massachusetts town that was shocked to discover that a "clothing store" that applied for a business permit turned out to be an "adult" store. State law didn't allow them to ban that type of business in town outright, but they could "zone it." So they quickly drafted an ordinance saying that no adult store could locate anywhere in town that was "within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, playground, park and recreation facility, or residential area." Gee, miracle of miracles -- there were only two lots in town that fit this criteria: the existing store and the lot next to it. So they added an amendment saying no store could be within 1,000 feet of another such store. Mission accomplished. Hey, it's not a ban, it's just zoning.
Ah, then they slated a kiddie park to be built within 1,000 feet of the existing store. It didn't work, only because the state court told them the existing store was grandfathered and to stop screwing around.
The "zoning" approach is a common ploy of politicians who know that their constituency is too innumerate to realize how much land area their little trick denies to the object of their hatred.
So sorry, Steve, but "here's your sign."
Continue reading "Obama's proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school"
Thoughts on reasoned discourse
Snowflakes in Hell has some strategic thoughts on reasoned discourse, why our side tends to use it, and why the other side gets upset when we do.
More on the Jack Weinstein gun lawsuits
Interesting story in The Daily Report. Judge Weinstein, US District Court, denied jury trial to one of the dealers sued by Bloomberg. To be precise, he allowedly only an "advisory jury." That's a procedure in judge-only trials (of which there are a few narrow classes), where the judge takes the jury's verdict as "advice" in the course of entering his own verdict.
Going on memory, I think Weinstein is dead wrong in denying a jury. His theory appears to that the suit is for abatement of a public nuisance, the only remedy sought is injunction, and under State law, injunction trials are judge-only.
BUT this is a Federal case, and the 7th Amendment provides "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." Nuisance is common law. As I recall, the courts assess the value of an injunction suit in terms of its money value, the dispute being whether you assess it by (a) its value to the plaintiff if he wins one, or (b) its cost to the defendant if he loses. I trust Bloomberg would not asset that if he wins the injunction would benefit NY by less than $20, and it's safe to say that the dealer's compliance cost would exceed $20. So the defendant dealer has not just a right, but a constitutional right, to a regular jury. Of course, Jack Weinstein is unlikely to allow a trifle like that to stand in his way.
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (11)
More knife violence
Yesterday I posted on articles reporting that "stabbings have become an epidemic in Britain" and in Canada. Today comes word of a fellow who "went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo's premier electronics and video game district, killing six people and wounding 12, authorities said." [Update: seven dead are now reported]. It also notes:
"Once rare, stabbing attacks have become more frequent in Japan in recent years as violent crime has increased. In one of the worst attacks, a man with a history of mental illness burst into an elementary school in Japan in 2001 and killed eight children."
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Instapundit may be right: the next legislative priority will be to ban assault knives. We can require that blades have no points, limit sharpness, restrict sharpening to licensees who know the limits, remove military ("Swiss Army") and paramilitary ("Boy Scouts") models from the market, etc.. Oh, and fundraise like hell!
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (9)
San Fran police chief has little problem with her guns
Story here.
Officers there are supposed to re-qualify with their firearms every six months. Scores of them have been disciplined for failure to do so.
The chief sorta forget to re-qualify for five years. Ooops.
Hat tip to The Mechanic...
At first I thought this was satire...
But I think he's serious. With friends like this, Obama needs no enemies.
NRA is "smearing" him as antigun, when actually he only favors registration, waiting periods, training requirements, ban on guns that are too cheap, one gun a month, ban on State CCW permits, no gun shop within five miles of a school, AW ban, and a few other trifles. Okay.
UPDATE in light of comment. I love a debate. Attached in extended remarks is the NRA statement. It seems to me that the blog post agrees that he did about 2/3 of the items it alleges. What of the remaining 1/3 can be denied? Or is the argument that the NRA post is accurate, it's just that these are all good things?
In which event, isn't this a little like arguing that ACLU has "smeared" Candidate Smith by truthfully saying he is anti free speech, just because he supports requiring a permit, with education requirements, before a person may criticize the government, imprisoning anyone who "falsely accuses a government official of misconduct," outlawing "speech that offends anyone without reasonable cause," etc., because the person expressing this view thinks that no one should criticize the government without knowing its business, or make false statements, or should offend others without cause? While I personally would subscribe to that code of conduct, I would (1) immediately vote against any candidate who advocated it as a legal code and (2) consider any such criticism to be no "smear," but rather a statement of truth and a benefical warning that the candidate was unworthy of my vote. A candidate who will not trust me to speak freely, or to own a 20 round magazine, is unworthy of my own trust in high office.
Continue reading "At first I thought this was satire..."
Permalink · Politics · Comments (53)
I'm glad that NY City thinks only LEOs should carry...
Hofstra campus police see a fellow burst thru their security checkpoint, confront a fellow who was dating his ex-girlfriend, and stick a gun in his face. They arrest him, and find out he's an NYPD officer with his service pistol
Hat tip to reader Greg Mirsky...
How NOT to rob a store
Video here.
NB: if planning to rob a convenience store, do not announce the robbery and then find you can't get the gun out of your pocket.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (2)
Knife crime in Canada, UK
The Toronto Globe and Mail has the story.
""All those things we're doing to decrease firearm weapons is cutting down the availability of these guns," says Staff Inspector Brian Raybould, the head of the Toronto police homicide squad. "At the same time, criminals who choose to arm themselves have to find some way to do it. If firearms aren't available, what's the next best thing? Knives, sharp-edged weapons."
.....
Toronto police responded to 167 stabbings up to the end of April, 2008 - in 73 of those cases, the victims were taken to hospital in serious condition. That's up from 58 by April last year.
Still, overall homicide rates - by any method - for Toronto and its suburbs are roughly the same so far this year as they were last year.
.....
In Britain, where Robert Knox, 18, who played schoolmate Marcus Belby in the Harry Potter movies, was stabbed to death with a wood-handled kitchen knife outside a pub last month, it is illegal to carry any knife longer than 7.62 centimetres. It is also illegal to sell a knife of any kind to someone under 18.
Yet stabbings have become an epidemic in Britain. Mr. Knox and more than 30 others died at knifepoint in the first five months of this year. The deaths are just a few of the 100-plus stabbings seen in the country since January, and police say most are committed by young men in their teens or early 20s.
Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.
He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
Last night
I'm relaxing in the hot tub late in the evening. I hear an engine approaching at high speed, and then a long crunching sound.
I knew what it was. The road comes up here in a long, straight course, rising to a ridge ... and then as you pop over the ridge it weaves left, then right. Another person rolled their car.
Out of tub, into robe, cell phone dialing 911 as I trotted up. Yep, a pickup had left the road, and was resting upside down on other side of the road (open desert bordered by barbed wire). The driver had already crawled out and departed. Two drivers had stopped, one a medical type in scrubs, the other an off-duty deputy, neighbors coming up (in Tucson, people "get involved.")
The truck was resting atop the barbed wire. Wanting to see if someone had been ejected into the desert, I tried to walk between the strands, misgauged, and got a barb about 3/8" into my shin. Ouch...
Deputy responding told me they'd traced the driver to his house a few blocks away. When they showed up he had cuts on his face. He said his dog had bitten him. Oh, and his truck? Ah ... uh ... it'd been stolen. They took a breathalyzer, and he was charged with extreme DUI.
Dumb crooks -- felon in possession
Note: if a person is a felon, they shouldn't possess a firearm. And if they do, they shouldn't take a picture of themselves doing so. And if they do take such a picture, they shouldn't use somebody else's camera phone.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (2)
Professor introducing self to the gun culture
Here's her blog entry, and here's her first post to Inside Higher Education.
In Utah?
The city council in South Jordan, Utah, is considering banning toy and replica guns, and paintball guns.
Hat tip to reader Nathan...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
New book
Howard Nemerov's new book, "Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn't It Working," is available at Barnes & Noble onlin.
More on knife crime in Great Britain
Story here.
"The deaths have sparked fears of a knife crime "epidemic" among Britain's young, and spurred the government to announce tougher penalties for teens caught carrying a blade."
.....
""Young people need to understand that carrying knives doesn't protect you, it does the opposite - it increases the danger for all of us, destroys young lives and ruins families," Brown said."
.....
"London's new mayor, Boris Johnson, has also vowed to crack down on knife crime. His proposals include airport-style metal-detecting arches at train and subway stations. London police recently began an aggressive new program to search anyone they wish for knives without having to justify their suspicions beforehand.
Some experts, however, say the measures are little more than political posturing.
"I'm skeptical about whether the latest measures will have an effect," said Enver Solomon, deputy director of the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.
He said most teens who carry knives do so because they have been the victims of crime."
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
NFA scam
SayUncle has the story.
Basically, a guy has a registered, relatively cheap, NFA firearm. Say it's a MAC-10, serial no. 1000. He cuts the serial no. section out, makes a receiver for a high cost NRA, say a BAR, and welds the serial number in. Then he sells it with the assurance it's perfectly legal. BATF will process the Form 4. Serial number and mfr match a registered gun, and so the transfer goes thru. I suspect the processing is by people who know little about firearms, and thus don't wonder why a MAC-10 is in .30-06 with a 24" barrel.
Eventually, of course, the matter comes to light and the gun is contraband.
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (10)
Glad to know the DC gun ban has made things safer
DC will seal off high-crime areas, set up vehicle checkpoints. Drivers who fail to show ID will be arrested for failure to obey an officer. (?)
Reading carefully -- actually, they're going to set up a checkpoint only on one street in the area. Pedestrians will not be stopped (and in DC, you get around on foot or via Metro whenever you can -- traffic goes slowly and usually there's no parking). So it must come under the "This will show we are doing something" exception to the 4th Amendment. (DC figures the 2nd Amendment is subject to that exception, hardly astonishing they think the 4th has it, too).
Interesting that the proposal is opposed both by the FOP and by the ACLU.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (17)
Public belief in 2A
Here's latest Harris Poll. Asked if the Second Amendment supported an individual right to arms or a state right to a militia --
41% said individual right
29% said both (which I think is the correct answer, but the Harris people wondered)
Between the two, 70% believe the 2A represents an individual right.
17% said state right only, and 5% said neither (?). I assume the rest were undecideds.
So that's really (if you understand the Amendment, which the Harris people don't, a 4:1 majority for individual right. As Gene Volokh pointed out, if someone wants to argue "living constitution," it would certainly appear that the Second Amendment is "living," indeed quite robust.
Now, this is pretty brazen
I noted yesterday that NRA won its suit against Philadelphia. The judge struck down two portions of the city's gun ordinance, and as to three ruled that plaintiffs' didn't have standing to sue. I.e., not that the ordinances were lawful, but that until they were enforced it was an abstract issue rather than a case. (Note that the city attorney had said she wouldn't prosecute the cases). Here's NRA's release on the case.
So the city sets out to spin, and the Philadelphia Metro buys every bit of it.
Headline: "Court gives city right to enforce some gun laws"
"A Common Pleas judge yesterday ruled in favor of three city laws passed two months ago by City Council, including the requirement of city residents to report lost and stolen guns to police."
"An appeal by the National Rifle Association, which filed the lawsuit last month, is very likely."
"The ruling was immediately hailed as a victory for Mayor Michael Nutter and the city in its fight for stronger local gun laws by the state’s leading anti-gun violence group.
Joe Grace of CeasefirePA said he hoped the ruling would also set a precedent for other cities and towns in Pennsylvania to follow."
This is pretty brazen! I'm awaiting the paper's announcement that the US lost the war in the Pacific, since, after negotiations on the deck of the U.S. Missouri, it abandoned plans to invade the country and agreed to stop fighting.
Oh, here's what makes it really pitiful. On the paper's page, in the right margin, is the AP release on the case.
Headline: "Judge tosses Philly ban on assault weapons, purchase limits"
"District Attorney Lynne Abraham has said she will follow state law and not enforce the city gun measures.
Greenspan had suggested in arguments last month that she, too, would follow that line. But she also thought the NRA might lack standing to challenge the three laws upheld Tuesday because they were not in effect and no clients had yet been harmed by them.
A lawyer for the National Rifle Association hailed Greenspan's ruling.
"The assault-weapons ban was just ridiculous," lawyer C. Scott Shields said. "There's just no way this would be enforceable.""
Permalink · media · Comments (6)
Brady Campaign fundraising pitch
Give us money so we can stop extremist judges who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
Don Kates on Hillary and the VP slot
It's long, and as usual, brilliantly reasoned and clearly expressed. I'll put it in extended remarks below. Basically, he reasons Hillary has (sort of) asked for the VP position -- because she doesn't want it.
Continue reading "Don Kates on Hillary and the VP slot"
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
Philly mayor questioned, cornered
Sebastian's question gets Mayor Nutter (love that name) in a tight spot.
NRA wins Philly challenge
They got a permanent injunction on two statutes. On others, the court held plaintiffs had no standing to sue (thus neither upholding or striking down the rules). The mayor's spokesman says the latter shows they were "legal and not actions of a renegade government." Nope, it doesn't. Hat tip to Jack Anderson...
UPDATE: the NRA statement on the victory.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Rev. Pfleger ordered to take leave of absense from chuch
Story here.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
Passing of an old friend
Bill Bailey, a former prof. of speech communications at U of Arizona, commented here with some regularity. His last comment, May 22, is here, another here. A couple of exceptional ones here.
I'd known Bill since around 1974 or 75. I've been lucky to know a lot of folks with above-average brains, but he certainly had the most versatile intellect I'd ever encountered. A fellow who could offhandedly tie together politics, statistical theory, psychology, communication theory, philosophy and much else in an organized and completely logical manner. Last saw him at dinner at his place a few weeks ago.
This morning I was told by his daughter Elisa that he'd passed on, an emergency open-heart surgery that didn't end well.
I don't think I'll know his equal again.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (5)
Steve Halbrook on 2A wording
His Op-Ed is here.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....
UPDATE: my own research into uses of "well regulated" in the 18th and early 19th centuries indicated that it was in common use as a term for something like "orderly" "in control."
Not necessarily under control from an outside force, it can be a matter of self-discipline. Uses such as "well-regulated tastes" or "well regulated mind" or "well regulated gentleman." And as the Heller briefing pointed out, Geo. Mason and others used it in the preamble to the Fairfax County militia resolves, which laid out a private, voluntary organization specifically designed to be outside direct Royal control.
How it got into the first part of the 2A is simple. If militia is the equivalent of "all men capable of bearing arms," then "a militia, being necessary to a free state" makes little sense. A free state will have a militia thus defined, but so will a tyranny. And a militia would be necessary to a free state only in the sense that it is necessary to any state (Even the Amazons of myth had to import guys from time to time in order to reproduce).
Permalink · Second Amendment wording · Comments (15)
Egad....
A prominent British antigun campaigner has been stabbed to death by her grandson. He was already in custody, over having stabbed a railroad worker, when challenged about trespassing.
Hat tip to Sarah "Six Gun Sally"...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (8)
Recoil reducer
Webpage here. Dunno what the effect on muzzle blast might be, tho.
UPDATE: after some search, I found the patent (search by city and "recoil" rather than company name). Didn't have time to really look it and the drawings over, but the description suggested it worked by redirecting muzzle blast rearwards. That's the principle of most muzzle brakes. The problem is the tradeoff between reducing recoil and increasing the shooter's muzzle blast as heard. A very quick read even suggested it relied upon spring loaded trapdoors, which have been tried for a century and do not work, given the incredible pressures we are talking about. Again, that was on a very quick read of a technical document.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (9)
Heller wait continuing....
No decision today. Likely dates for announcement are all Mondays -- June 9, 16, and 23.
UPDATE: I'd bet on June 23, too. This is the most important decision in decades. Not just the most important 2A case. In terms of number of Americans interested, it beats every other issue in decades -- probably the school desegregation cases and Roe v. Wade are its only competitors in a half a century. The Court simply MUST get it on the nose. Its prestige rises in tens of millions of minds if it does so, and collapses in tends of millions if it does not. And this is an area where the Supreme Court case law is almost nonexistent, so it must work from scratch.
ATF ruling on autosears and receivers
ATF Ruling 2008-1 is here, in pdf. On its face, it changes the definition of which receiver half is legally the "firearm" for an FNC rifle.
What is of concern is part of its reasoning. There are autosears for the FNC; if installed these allow it to fire full-auto. Autosears have been held to require NFA registration, as a device designed to allow automatic fire; each one is serial numbered, registered, and traditionally treated as the registered machine gun. To the best of my knowledge, it was never argued that putting one into a semiauto made the remainder of the semiauto a machinegun with a separate registration requirement. But this Ruling's reasoning is that since you would have to drill and mill a semiauto FNC receiver to accomodate the autosear, doing so would make the receiver a full-auto receiver, and violate the 86 ban.
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (7)
Now, this is a shocker
"Clinton changes handgun position".
I suppose only a cynic would say that Hillary's switching positions around because Montana holds its primary Tuesday, and her position on gun control isn't popular with voters there. Hmmm... good thing I'm a cynic.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford....
UPDATE: When she changed her position, she forgot to tell Chelsea, who was telling folks in Billings that "We also need to do more with gun control. And my mom supports- naturally what she supported in New York. Which is: we have different gun control laws in New York City than we do in upstate New York."
Hat tip to reader Fifty Cal...
Permalink · Politics · Comments (3)
Update on Tucson situation
Story here.
Just went out for what would have been a 20 minute errand. It took over an hour. Tanque Verde Road is closed off, I assume for searches for shell casings and such, and all the westbound traffic here has to reroute north, then east, then south, then finally westward on the roads below Tanque Verde.
Ammo prices rising
Story here. Lead and copper prices are up, and so is ammo.
Local activity
Story here. By local, I mean Tanque Verde is the major road on this end of town. A few minutes ago I was on it and saw officers searching, I assume for shell casings.
An amusing world view
Blogger, complaining of proposal to allow CCW in national parks:
"What gets me is that if you allow people to carry weapons into our national treasures, what is to stop the bad guy from doing the same; and then the escalation starts...."
I can't say much for the logic there....