« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »
July 2008
Now, this is strange
Albany County authorities have cut a deal with an armed robber, with past violent record, to testify in a misdemeanor case involving alleged false accusations against officers. Under it, the robber will serve three years. Around here, if he had a prior felony record (the story isn't clear), he'd have done more like 15, ten of it without chance of parole.
Discussion of FLA ruling on guns in parking lots
A clear discussion, at last, in the St. Petersburg Times. The ruling apparently upheld rights of employees to have guns in parked cars, but not the right of customers to. The latter was keyed to how the legislature worded the statute, so they can amend it to cure the problem.
In the meantime, I wonder how a company would enforce against a customer anyway? They can always demand to search employees' cars with threat of firing them, but a customer has a right to tell them to go to. I doubt any commercial establishment that actually searched customers' cars as a condition to coming into the store would be in business very long.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Rep. Souder on DC right bill
Rep. Souder, who introduced a bill to curtail DC's resistance to Heller, has a well-written letter to the editor in the Washington Post.
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (3)
Testing out the new GA law
Story here.
"What happens when a Middle Eastern-looking man and a young black man walk into a LongHorn [restaurant] with loaded pistols on their belts?
"Welcome to LongHorn, will it just be the two of you?""
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
Will wonders never cease?
Governor of Mass. sends proposal for doubling the present $100 pistol permit fees to the legislature, and the Massachusetts House instead passes a bill cutting them to $40.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
Judge rules in FLA case over ban of parking lot bans
Artic;e here. Unfortunately, it's hard to judge from the article just what the court did. It seems to say that the judge upheld the law in general, but ruled the distinctions between one type of business and another were unconstitutional. Which would hardly be consistent with upholding the law in general.
Heller II is filed
It's a challenge to DC'S continuing ban on semiautos.
(Blogging was slow today due to a meeting, and will be slow for a day or two due to research and travel).
Update: Heller has to file a second suit, since his first one alleged that he wanted to possess a revolver, so whether DC's ban on semiauto pistols is unconstitutional wasn't an issue and wasn't ruled upon. Logically, it stands to reason that a ban on semiautos -- the majority of pistols made todqy -- would be about as invalid as a ban on all pistols, but that wasn't within the first appeal or the Supreme Court ruling, and can't be settled without another suit with a chance for DC to defend.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (22)
More illicit gun seizures in New Orleans
Story here. Sounds like personal corruption rather than policy.
Off topic -- energy issue
American oil companies are about to cut interim deals with Iraq, with an eye to increasing its oil output. Apparently Congress is objecting and threatening retribution if the deals go thru. OK, Congress doesn't want oil from offshore sites, ANWR, nor ethanol from Brazil, nor electricity from windfarms, at least near Ted Kennedy's digs.
I'd prefer to believe that they were being bribed by OPEC. The only alternative explanation was that they're screwing up the country for the fun of it.
Mayor Daley proposing even more gun laws
Reported at Armed and Safe. I love the beginning: "Mayor Daley, never one to let himself be limited to . . . being sane, is responding to the Heller-inspired lawsuits aimed at overturning Chicago's handgun ban by looking at passing more gun laws."
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (5)
Good list of procedures for registering a gun in DC
Right here. A bit more complicated than in AZ, where the checklist consists of "buy a gun."
I had a person tell me, years ago, that when they moved here they called the Sheriff's Office to find out how to register their pistol. The answer was "you can't." She said that she just didn't feel comfortable with an unregistered gun, could she send them a letter with the data. The deputy responded that she could, but they' probably toss the letter, since they have no files for anything like that.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (9)
Spam King kills wife, daughter, self
This gives real meaning to the term minimum security federal prison. He escaped by having his wife pick him up and drive away.
Post-Heller roundup
In the Washington Times, Jacob Sullum argues "D.C.'s political leaders know they are inviting another Second Amendment lawsuit, but they are determined to defy the Supreme Court and the Constitution for as long as possible."
While the Washington Post upbraids Congress for considering legislation affecting DC's new laws: "DISTRICT residents are sadly accustomed to congressional interference in their affairs. Usually, the meddling comes in a bid to overturn local legislation."
Rather strange, since the Post otherwise supports Congress "meddling" in State and local affairs. I guess it just figures Congress should control everything except the federally-owned enclave where Congress sits.
And the LA Times notes that DC residents still can't buy guns. The Gun Control Act of 1968 forbids them to buy handguns in Maryland, VA, and other States, and the DC government hasn't promulgated regulations on purchasing guns. (I wonder if it has to. The ban was a ban on registrations, overlaid on an existing registration system. Unless the registration system had some ban on sales, too, there would be no regulations necessary to allow a sale).
Hat tip to Dan Gifford.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (10)
Chicago digs in its heels
Good.
Hat tip to Carl in Chicago....
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (5)
Massachusetts quietly moving to double permit fees
Story here. The firearm permit annual fee would go from $100 to $200.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (7)
How to deal with REAL straw man cases
As in twelve years in prison.
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (1)
Brady on Heller: "we're glad we lost"
At the Brady Campaign Blog. Where they claim that NRA's initial opposition to the suit was inspired by fears that, with gun confiscation off the table, the organization wouldn't do so well.
I heard a lot of discussion about taking a Supreme Court case 2000-2006, and the only concern was "no one can predict, or even rationally guess, the outcome." As one very pro-2A law prof said "I can see where you get two votes; I can't see where you get the other three." Law is always a roll of the dice; the question is whether you like the odds. Heller's team did, rolled the dice and won.
I can tell you that during the oral argument, there was a breathtaking moment when Justice Kennedy showed his hand (for the first time; where he stood on the 2A was completely unknown). I'm told the DC advocate's face fell as he realized he'd probably lost the fifth vote. The Chief Justice's questions had signaled he was all for an individual right at that point, I think. Alito was unknown, probably our way, and then he tipped his hand, too. We had five votes. But until then it was a cliffhanger.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (16)
Dave Kopel on Heller and the right of self-defense
Dave Kopel has an article on the subject, accepted at Syracuse Law Review.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Dumb crook burglarizes rifle club
Story here. He walked home, and deputies just followed his footprints to his door.
Hat tip to Bernie Oliver...
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (1)
Wilmette IL repeals handgun ban
Story here. It's the second Chicago suburb to do so (first was Morton Grove). Four more remain in place.
Hat tip to reader Carl in Chicago....
DC's compliance with Heller
An article at Reason Online.
Via Instapundit....
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (12)
Candidates reach out to "no values voters"
From The Onion.
Permalink · humor · Comments (0)
Argue with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's staff, get guns seized
Story in the NY Post.
Hat tip to reader Eric Schultz...
95% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name
Its' true!. Disbarred lawyer flees to Canada to dodge statutory rape charges, is traced via use of his AMEX card, and now sues American Express.
UPDATE: here's more on him.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (1)
Mothers Against Guns violated tax code?
Snowflakes in Hell asks the question. MAG is a Pennsylvania entity that appears to be violation the restrictions on what a 501(c)(3) can legally do.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (5)
"How a gun-hating family from Billerica produced an Olympic shooter."
An article in, of all things, the Boston Globe.
""I was very anti-gun when my kids were little," says Scherer's mother, Sue, who works a number of different jobs, including cleaning and painting houses, running a day care, and organizing Jeopardy!-style entertainment for nursing homes. "I always thought, `Guns are bad. Guns kill people.' So, I didn't want my kids to have anything to do with guns.""
Her son wound up at West Point, and on the US Olympic shooting team; her daughter narrowly missed being on the team.
Cackle. We're like zombies. There's no stopping us. Or maybe it's as P.J. O'Rourke says. All kids have a drive to shock their parents. This is a problem for kids today, many of whom were conceived during drug-laden public sex at Woodstock; there's no way to shock your parents anymore. Except by enlisting. Esp. in the US Marine Corps, so you can come home and tell them you like the doctrine of "every man a rifleman."
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson.....
Heller and felons
Don Kates has an article in the NY Post on the topic.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (7)
"gun guys" on the UN
Most amusing. The (anti)Gun Guys, a/k/a Freedom States Alliance, a/k/a Joyce Foundation, have a post complaining about the US refusing to participate in a UN conference directed at the international arms trade.
What's amusing is the illustration, I assume of illegal arms being rounded up somewhere in Africa. I see several AKs, SKSs, Mausers, Enfields, a possible Sten, and several H&Ks. Not one American-made rifle in the lot.
Hat tip to read Jack Anderson....
Permalink · UN · Comments (13)
Article on San Fran suit
And a good one.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (4)
U.N. efforts
At Opinio Juris, Kenneth Anderson has a response to a NY Times hit piece on NRA and the UN.
"The movement toward a small arms and light weapons treaty got going in the wake of the landmines ban treaty; it was a natural follow-on for the then-ascendent global civil society movement. But I recall sitting in meetings of landmines advocates talking about where things should go next; I was director of the Human Rights Watch Arms Division, with a mandate to address the transfer of weapons into conflicts where they would be used in the violation of the laws of war, and small arms were the main concern. I was astonished at how quickly the entire question morphed from concern about the flood of weapons into African civil wars how to use international law to do an end run around supposedly permissive gun ownership regimes in the US. ....
I dropped any personal support for the movement when it became clear, a long time ago, that it is about controlling domestic weapons equally in the US (or, today, even more so) as in Somalia or Congo. Yes, there is a logic, a coherency, to the idea that one needs a set of universal rules that are more or less the same for every place. One can choose between that idea and the one that I urged, that it was both substantively wrong and disastrous strategy to think that the rules for a profoundly broken place, lands of civil wars and failed states, should or could be the same as for a functioning democratic society. The small arms and light weapons movement long ago made its choice about that, and I dropped it at that time."
Hat tip to Joe Olson....
Permalink · UN · Comments (13)
Sounds like a nice place to live....
Newspaper survey of Alabama residents finds 66% own guns and 80% believe in an individual right to arms. I have to wonder, tho, at the finding that 46% have CCW licenses; that sounds way high.
GeorgiaCarry.com gets favorable press
Pro-gun group GeorgiaCarry.org gets a very nice write-up in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Permalink · media · Comments (1)
California case: Nordyke v. King
Good summary of it at CalGuns Foundation. I was surprised to learn the suit is still alive!
In 1999, Alameda County passed an ordinance banning guns on public property, including the location where the gun show was usually held. A challenge was filed in Federal district court, and the judge spontaneously raised the 2nd Amendment question, before ruling against the challenge. To be precise, he denied an injunction at the outset of the case. He didn't dismiss it.
It went to the 9th Circuit, which asked the California Supremes to clarify a state law question.
The 9th ruled in 2003 that plaintiff had no standing, following prior 9th Circuit rulings -- it was a state right and he wasn't a state. But the majority opinion suggests that, but for the prior rulings, the judges would have ruled differently, and one judge concurred to say he thought the prior rulings were dead wrong.
After that, the case went on in District Court (all that had been denied was an injunction at the outset). In 2007, the District Court ruled in favor of the County, and an appeal was filed with the 9th Circuit. After Heller, both sides have requested to brief the 2A issue. Good news is that the same three judge panel will hear it.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (9)
One more reason to be glad I live in Arizona...
Snowflakes in Hell reports on an elderly New Jersey fellow who shot a home intruder ... and the prosecutor is debating whether to file charges.
WSJ on Heller & his attorneys
Story here. The only mystery is from where they got the cartoon/sketch -- it hardly resembles Alan Gura.
Hat tip to Joe Olson...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
Reporters accidentally shot at anti-gun event
OK, it's in China, but it's still ironic. The press conference's purpose was to alert reporters to the dangers of illegal guns. It was a success.
Hat tip to reader the Mechanic. Sounds like it was homemade shotgun loaded with pebbles.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (1)
Debate over the world post-Heller
Robert Levy, David Kopel, and Dennis Henigan (Brady Campaign) have a debate going over at Cato Unbound.
Via Instapundit...
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (0)
Heller registers his revolver
Story at Reason Online. Like others, written by someone with only modest knowledge of firearms.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (7)
British press stepping up drumbeat for knife control
Scaring people increases circulation, and that increases ad revenue, so
The Daily Mail's headline is "Thugs committing 350 knife assaults EVERY DAY, as blade menace spreads to rural areas."
Times Online is more moderate: "Crime falls, but stabbings not just an urban problem."
The Telegraph leads with: "One person is a victim of knife crime every four minutes."
Not to mention: "Nike Air Stab trainer withdrawn after spate of knife murders."
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (2)
Good interview on Heller ruling
Prof. Adam Winkler, UCLA Law, in the National Journal. It's quite detailed, does a great job of outlining the legal strategy (which was as fine a bit of strategic work as I've ever seen in a court) but here's a few high points:
Q: Justice Stevens lamented in his dissent that the court's decision overturns a longstanding precedent. Do you think the Heller decision represents a huge departure from previous decisions?
Winkler: Yes and no. It is a huge departure from the over 40 cases of federal court decisions interpreting Miller to protect the state militia and only the state militia and not to have any impact on an individual right to bear arms for private purposes.... On the other hand, the Supreme Court case law was pretty weak. There had only been that Miller case.... One side in the case -- [Jack] Miller, the defendant -- didn't even appear in the Supreme Court, refused to file a brief. All they had was one perspective -- the government's perspective -- on that case.... Prior to Miller there had been several decisions that had not been Second Amendment cases, but the court had referred to the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. So, I think that the Supreme Court precedent was not all that strong. But nonetheless, the legal rule was strongly recognized in the federal courts in general.
Q: Much of the literature on Heller talks about this case being a triumph for "originalism" or an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Can you talk a little bit about the concept of originalism and how it applies in this case?
Winkler: Well, originalism is basically the idea that you'll define the meaning of a constitutional provision by reference to the original public understanding of the provision -- what the ordinary person would have understood that provision to mean in its time -- in contrast with living constitutionalism, the idea that these provisions evolve and keep up with changes in the underlying society.
Certainly, in one sense this case marks the triumph of originalism. There were over 70 amicus briefs filed in the case. Almost all of them employed originalist methodology to define what the right protected by the Second Amendment was. The Supreme Court goes on for pages and pages and pages parsing the history of the Second Amendment and what the framers and the American people might have understood the provisions to mean at the time. And even the dissent talks in originalist terms about what the intention of the framers was.
However, I think that the majority opinion by Justice [Antonin] Scalia departs radically from originalism where it really counts and where it really matters. The real question about the Second Amendment is what laws are prohibited and what laws are allowed under that constitutional provision. That's where the Second Amendment rubber hits the road. And on this question the court eschews originalism and focuses on what seems to me like living constitutionalism. The court says, 'Well, we don't mean to call into question longstanding bans on felons in possession of firearms or bans on guns in sensitive places or restrictions relating to the purchase and sale of weapons.' And the court also refers to an earlier opinion that bans on dangerous and unusual weapons are not barred by the Second Amendment. But all of these things are stuff that comes not from the original public meaning of the Second Amendment but from the traditions of American law since then. These kinds of laws are products of later generations, not of the founding generation.
Q: The New York Times wrote that with this decision the court "began writing a new chapter of constitutional law." Do you agree?
Winkler: I do, but I don't.... The idea that the right to bear arms is somehow some new right seems to me totally far-fetched. The New York Times is right, there is a new chapter of constitutional law being written -- a Second Amendment chapter. But, that said, the "right to bear arms" chapter has been written over the last 200 years. Almost every state in the union recognizes an individual right to bear arms for private purposes under their state constitutions.... Many states put these provisions in their original founding constitutions; other states have more recently added them. But it's a very well established constitutional right that individuals have under American constitutional law, broadly defined to include the American constitutional tradition at the state level.
There have been hundreds of cases challenging gun control laws at the state level, and it's always been true, despite what all of the extremists say in the gun debate, that we've had an individual right to bear arms and we've had reasonable gun control regulations. And they've coexisted peacefully with occasional controversies over particular kinds of bans. But the truth is that courts are not going to allow guys with bazookas to wander down Pennsylvania Avenue, and they're also not going to allow government to completely disarm the people. Because that right to bear arms is part of the American tradition. So is it a new chapter? Yeah, there's going to be a lot more cases. There's a Second Amendment chapter. But... you might think of this as just one more story in a larger chapter about the right to bear arms in American constitutional law.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
Proposal to call out National Guard in Chicago
Governor Blogo ..Bladjo... Anyway, the governor of Illinois proclaims Chicago crime is out of control and proposes to call out the National Guard.
Good thing Chicago's handgun ban is working! If not for that, they'd have to call out 101st Airborne to enforce the laws.
Hat tip to reader Cory...
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (9)
Dick Heller shows up to register his gun
And is turned down because he wanted to register a semi-auto. Confusing story here. Confusing because the reporter doesn't know the difference between clips and rounds, and it sounds as if DC police, in spoon-feeding the reporter the concept of semiauto, explained that it loaded "from the bottom," which the reporter took as the definition. (DC law defines any handgun that can accept a magazine with 12 or more rounds as a forbidden machine gun, whether you have a magazine of that type or not, and whether it's standard or not. If anyone has ever made mag. that fits your handgun and can hold 12 or more rounds, your handgun is verbotten).
UPDATE: I've heard that Heller will be back to register a revolver tomorrow.
UPDATE Pt. 2: The Heller Sup. Ct. ruling wouldn't cover this, since he had said he wanted to register a .38 revolver. The issue of the semiauto restriction thus wasn't considered by the Supremes. It'd require a new case to test that.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (27)
Interesting aspect to the media
Encountered an article in which the author says that the country "according to anti-arms campaigners, has one of the greatest per capita rates of gun ownership in the world." Alongside a cartoon of a fellow reaching for the two guns in his belt, the author notes:
"How many more wake up calls do we need until law makers realise that some new, strict gun control laws need to be passed? What about a limit on the number of guns a person can have, say, two? What about more detailed background checks?" He calls for an assault weapon ban, and ends with:
"As everyone realises, we are no longer the pioneer society we were when gun laws were first instituted in this country. I do not understand why legislators do not get it, gun control laws are extremely out of date."
So what's unusual about this article? Click on extended remarks to see.
Continue reading "Interesting aspect to the media"
Permalink · non-US · Comments (6)
Fight over whether congressmen are allowed to blog
Story here. A Congressman is using Twitter and posting videos, and this revolutionary approach to communicating with Americans is causing a stir:
"Culberson's actions have put him in possible violation of House rules that appear to ban blogging or other work-related activities on non-House Web sites.
Current rules "have been interpreted to prohibit (House) members from posting official content outside of the House.gov domain," Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., chairman of the Congressional Commission on Mailing Standards, better known as the franking committee, wrote in a report late last month."
State constitutional rights to defend self and property
Here's a recent article (pdf) by Prof. Gene Volokh on the subject. Via, of course, the Volokh Conspiracy.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Slight improvement in the UK
It sounds from this story as if the improvement is essentially: "formerly, if you defended yourself in a very restrained way, we would prosecute you anyway and require you to prove your innocence: now we won't file charges." That this is viewed as a reform tells us all we need to know. Some persons quoted, tho, say it's no more than window-dressing.
"It came as it emerged that homeowners could have to wait up to three days after reporting a crime to see a police officer, according to a leaked draft of the Policing Green Paper.
It sets out new national standards for local policing for all 43 forces cross England and Wales.
Callers to the police will be given set times within which officers will attend an incident.
The paper says that this will be "within three hours it if requires policing intervention or three days if there is less immediate need for a police presence.""
Permalink · non-US · Comments (5)
Perpetual victimhood
Article here. It recounts the story of John White, a black who moved into an almost-entirely white area of Long Island. A gang of white youths shows up on his lawn at night, cursing him and threatening to kill his son. He draws a .32, one of them slaps it away, and he plugs him. He winds up convicted of manslaughter. The author contrasts the case with that of a while male in Texas who shot two burglars and walked.
OK, that's not the difference of race, but between Texas and NYC. Here in AZ, juries would have walked him in a heartbeat. OK, so maybe the Arizona Revised Statutes require more threat than that ... he'd been menaced, on his own land, the aggressors threatened his kid. He even gave fair warning. The A.R.S. are the written law, but there's also an unwritten one that juries follow. You've got 12 homeowners sitting in the jury box thinking "I could have done that, too."
Instead, the author concludes:
"So should L.I., NY change their gun laws to be more like TX? Then of course we risk the chance of having more child-gun accidents, more gun robberies, and thus more gun crimes, and more senseless gun killings...More guns equal more death. How about calling the police? Getting a dog? An alarm system? Martial arts? Even a taser, for crying out loud!"
So... the guy was within his rights, should have been acquitted, but we don't want anyone to be able to do that.... when you're supporting a self-defender, it's not the time to talk about gun ownership leading to "senseless gun killings."
PS--as to his allegation that gun rights groups "went running" to the Texan's defense, and ignored that of the defendant here, I've not heard that any gun rights groups were involved in the Texas case (which ended, quickly, when a grand jury refused to indict, and I see no mention that the defendant here ever alerted a gun rights group. But that's irrelevant to the author's claim of victimhood, I suppose.)
[UPDATE: I meant that the author of the article was trapped in a victimhood state of mind. He argues that Mr. White was attacked, then victimized by the NY "justice" system. Sounds like that to me. But he then argues that people having firearms, i.e., John White, would just make everyone victims of crime, or themselves victims of accidents. So, one way or the other, we all should resign ourselves to being victims one way or another. I should've been clearer.]
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (12)
Still more on Great Britain
At Rachel Lucas. One comment hits it on the nose: thank God that Nelson and Churchill aren't alive to see it.
Via Instapundit....
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
Guest editorial on Heller
My column is here.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
Video of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms party
Hosted by Independence Institute, sounds like a heck of a party.
DC talking about new rules
Story here. The most noteworthy features are ballistic testing (i.e., storing a fired bullet, which was tried somewhere, Calif. perhaps, and proved utterly useless, and a provision that the firearm must be in a safe or trigger locked except in immediate self-defense. So, as one commenter notes, that means you can open the safe when someone is actually beating down your door and not before.
Also they illustrate the story with a semi-auto, while noting that almost all semi-autos are banned....
Bob Levy on the post-Heller world
Here's his article, in Cato Unbound.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (1)
Posr-Heller Federal legislation
H.R. 1399, the "D of C Personal Protection Act." is moving. They're talking about a discharge petition. You can move a bill that is stalled in committee by one of those, which discharges the committee from responsibility and moves the bill to the floor. Difficulties are (1) the petition must have 218 signatures, a majority of the House; (2) the leadership gets to know who has signed it; (3) nobody else does, so you can have 225 people swearing they signed, and be left wondering why it hasn't met its goal. You get to know the current count, but not the identities.
UPDATE: a reader emails me that under reforms put into place in the 103rd Congress, the identities of those signing a discharge petition are now public information. I greatly like that reform. Last discharge petition I was involved with was in 1986.
Thought on claims that DC ban had effect on ... anything.
There were a few studies that claimed to find that DC's handgun ban had some dramatic effect on homicide, suicide, jock rash, and whatnot. There have been lengthy debates over the studies' problems (like cherrypicking dates, ignoring that crime was already trending down and, in at least one case, picking the wrong effective date for the ban).
I think there is a simpler response. If this accurately reports when the chief of police said, when the handgun "ban" went into effect in 1976 there were already 41,000 registered handguns in DC.
At what rate will those deplete? A few might break and not be worth repairing, but (1) this is rare (2) I doubt the guns in DC were fired or used much and (3) since you can't register a replacement, you'd certainly repair your present one. I doubt you'd have losses of 100 a year this way. Some owners would die and be unable to transfer. Might lose 1000 a year that way. Thefts don't count, since the guns probably remain in DC. Nor do people moving away, since they're not available to commit crime, either (and not being replaced; DC at the time was rapidly losing total population).
So if we guesstimate depletion of 1,100 handguns a year after the registration stop, we'd have something like:
1976: 41,000
1977: 39,900
1978: 38,800
1979: 37,600
And the studies in question claimed substantial short term (2-4 year) declines. Even if make the gun-controller's ultimate leap of faith -- that fewer legal guns means less crime -- how could one expect to see any measurable, let alone dramatic, reduction over a period of a few years?
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (0)
Oops
American pastor, going to meet a fellow clergyman in Russian, brings a gift that lands him in a Russian jail. A box of cartridges for his host's new rifle.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
Disney firing security guard: the legal end of things
Editorial here. Apparently when FLA passed the provision allowing employees to leave firearms in their cars, business interests began pushing for exemptions. Nuclear plants. Places whose primary business is making explosives. And then businesses holding a federal explosives permit. You need one of those for serious fireworks, and so Disney of course has one.
UPDATE: ah, but reader rufx2 points out, the bill's exemption (skim to line 214) covers only those federally licensed to "to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property" (or whose primary business is making explosives). Maybe Disney has a license to import, manufacture and deal, but a license to store and use explosives doesn't qualify.
Interesting article on popular panics, media, and laws
Right here. It focuses upon media driven panics, with little or no basis in fact (e.g., a "study" that indicated 80% of internet images are porn, and a claim that 50,000 sexual predators are online at any moment), that led to federal legislation, specifically anti-internet-porn laws and concern over MySpace being exploited by hordes of sexual predators. In each case, there was either no hard evidence, or in one case a largely invented study (which the author convinced a law review to publish without verifying his data) that led to media hype, perception of a crisis, and legislation.
The parallels with, oh, "assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," "a gun in the home is more likely to kill you than a criminal," and other such issues are rather striking.
Brought back a memory of my late ex, who upon watching an episode of "60 Minutes" became utterly convinced that drug pushers were everywhere hanging out around school, and passing out free samples in order to get students addicted. It was on the TV -- it had to be accurate!
From Mike Masnick of Tech Dirt, who has this post on it, and to reader Sam Wilson....
[Update: wouldn't have been the Wild Bunch, which came out in the 60s, I think, and featured shotguns and a belt fed Browning. Great flick. But as I recall the movie fad in the late 50s was juvenile delinquency, and I'm sure there were a lot with switchblades.]
Permalink · media · Comments (5)
More on ACLU Nevada and Heller
The Las Vegas Sun has a more detailed story on it. As I mentioned earlier, I expect the Texas ACLU will join them as soon as it had a board of directors meeting. My memory is that in the past they endorsed "shall issue" permits in their State.
More detail reports on Chicago progun rall6
Here's a more detailed report, with pics and summaries of the presentations.
Animal rights working into the classroom
Story here.
Hat tip to Jim Kindred...
Permalink · animal rights and eco-terrorism · Comments (15)
Congressman tries to butter up hunters and slips
Bitter has the story here. Mark Udall of Colorado issued a press release saying he would introduce a bill designating part of Pittman-Robertson money (an excise tax on guns, ammo, and other things) for hunter safety and range development, and allowing agencies to roll over unspent money to the next year.
Minor problem, as Bitter points out, is that that's already the law and has been for years.
Chicago gun rally
Here's a report, with photos. Via Instapundit.
Strangely, I can't find any coverage on the Chicago Tribune site...
Guns in parks comment period extended
Story here.
"The period for public comment on a controversial rule change that would allow loaded guns in national parks has been extended to August 8 after pressure from congressional leaders.
.....
"The comment period was scheduled to end on June 30, but the chairs of the Senate and House national park subcommittees sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior days before the deadline requesting an extension, according to a statement by the National Parks Conservation Association.
The letter sent by Senator Daniel Akaka and Congressman Raul Grijalva stated that "the Department's proposal is ardently opposed by current and former park ranger professionals who have countless years of experience in park management and resource protection,” according to the NCPA statement."
Anti-gun movement seeking new angle?
At Snowflakes in Hell, Sebastian has a thought about the antigun group's apparent increase in references to suicide rather than homicide. He suggests they're angling for recruits among the families of suicides. It's unlikely that they are aiming to find a winning argument for the general population; suicide is the ultimate in "if he can't get a gun, he'll use something else" situation.
He has, I think, a good point. When impacted by a tragedy like that, a person often has a drive to feel that they are doing something about it, thus striking back at the tragedy itself. (That's why Pete Shields essentially founded what is today the Brady Campaign -- before his time it was a tiny group, but as a former Dupont VP he had the skill to make it a big one. His son was murdered by the Zebra Killers, and he was off to do something).
With suicide right now, those impacted can volunteer for suicide hotlines, join local suicide prevention groups with their educational campaigns... in short, do things which are productive but seem small scale. They might be likely recruits for campaigns that can claim a broad national agenda in exchange for donations and volunteers. Add to that the factor that families of the average suicide victim are probably better off financially, and better able to donate, than families of the average murder victim (esp. now that gang killings have become a large picture of that), and that there are more of them.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (11)
High gas prices affecting even gang drive by shootings
Chicago is reporting a gang-related bike-by shooting.
Reminds me of--
What is this sound? Clippity-clop, clippety-clop, BANG! BANG!" clippety-clop.
Answer: an Amish drive-by shooting.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (3)
Justice Breyer's dissent misreads DC law?
At Concurring Opinions, Prof. Mike O'Shea has a post demonstrating just that. Breyer's dissent argued that the DC law was a reasonable regulation, since he thought militia purposes were the most important aspect of the 2A, and a person could still own and practice with rifles. But as Prof. O'Shea points out, DC law bans machineguns -- and defines them as any semiauto that can accept a magazine of more than 12 rounds. Effectively, this ban every American militiary rifle made in the last 40-50 years (ever since they retired the M-1 Garand in favor of the M-14).
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
Nevada ACLU breaks ranks
ACLU of Nevada has broken with the national position:
"The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights."
I wouldn't be surprised if ACLU of Texas soon joins them.
Hat tip to Say Uncle.
member of Bloomberg's group under indictment
Jackson, MS mayor Frank Melton, a member of Bloomberg's Mayors' group, is in hot water again. This time he's under indictment for federal civil rights violations.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Lower court follows pre-Heller law
Gene Volokh has a post on it. The federal trial court notes that " Ostalaza neglects to substantiate that argument with citations to any authority. Instead, Ostalaza points to District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that was pending before the Supreme Court at the time his motion was filed. " Can't see where that makes a difference.
It then cites to collective-right rulings from its Circuit. As Gene points out, the trial court seems to assume that it is bound by its Circuit rulings even though the Supreme Court has gone to the contrary -- the Circuit is its immediate boss, and until the Circuit changes its mind, the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't matter much.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (3)
Brady: A permit holder is just someone who hasn't committed a crime, YET
Video debate over Georgia's (error corrected) statute allowing CCW in parking lots, mass transit and airports here.
The Brady Campaign spokesman says "We've gotta be reasonable here .... getting a concealed weapons permit just means you haven't committed a crime, yet." An interesting attitude for a group that claims to only want "commonsense" restrictions.
UPDATE: no idea where he got that figure. If you have a large enough group of people, somebody's going to get arrested for something. For example, there are about 1.5 million arrests nationwide for DUI annually, and that's just one misdemeanor. Works out to about half a percent of the population. Texas has around 268,000 pistol permit holders, so if they're at the same rate as the general population, that'd mean 1,368 DUI arrests or 3.6 per day, just for DUI. Total arrest rate for the US in 2005 was 4,761.6 per 100,000, or nearly 5% of the population. For 268,000 people, that'd mean 13,400 arrests, or about 37 per day.
If he's claiming the arrest rate for Texas permit holders is 2.5 per day, it'd mean permit holders are doing much better (as in 12 times better) than the general population.
Jim Lindgren takes on study of DC homicides
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindren gives a devastating critique of the 1991 Loftin study claiming that DC's gun ban cut homicides.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
Interesting public opinion poll
Story here.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (8)
"Peer review"
Frequently I've seen the claim that articles published in historical or medical journals are somehow more reliable than those in law reviews, since the former are subject to "peer review," i.e., review by other scholars in the field, whereas law reviews are subject to edit by student editors. As the career of Mr. Bellesiles suggests, peer review doesn't prevent little things like wholesale invention of evidence or gross misreading of authorities. I suspect that, unless the peers have a lot of specific expertise in the subject, to where they know the evidence by heart, it's a bit more like "I like his conclusion."
UPDATE: a comment has an excellent point. In the hard sciences, peer review functions to, basically, keep crackpots or people with highly questionable theses out. There, science is grounded in reality and established method. But in fields like history, it is precisely the "innovation," i.e., what could likely be crackpot, that is cherished, and only the very narrow thesis is objectively provable. A reviewer could do what law review editors would -- check out every footnote to make sure the authorities cited actually support the statement -- or just skip that and judge whether the argument sounds interesting and doesn't clearly conflict with anything the reviewer knows to be true (and in the case of gun ownership as evidenced in original probate records, odds are the reviewer knows nothing of the question. I do wonder that none of Belleseile's reviewers bothered to read the militia statutes he claimed to cite, tho).
The other problem comes when a discipline is met with an entirely new extension, i.e., treating gun violence as if it were disease. The average medical expert has little idea of criminology or its analytics, and "sounds like a good idea to me" will prevail. An argument that walnut hulls will cure cancer will meet with skepticism, and detailed verification of the claims, arguments about whether guns are a net value in light of self defense will not.
Clayton Cramer has a post, relating to this article in Inside Higher Ed. It relates to a study that involved actually reading published, peer-reviewed articles and comparing them to the sources they cited.
"31 percent of the references in public health journals contained errors, and three percent of these were so severe that the referenced material could not be located.”
“[A]uthors’ descriptions of previous studies in public health journals differed from the original copy in 30 percent of references; half of these descriptions were unrelated to the quoting authors’ contentions.”
So much for peer review.
Hat tip to Joe Olson...
Gun rights rally in Chicago this Frida
A Second Amendment Freedom Rally, 11 AM -1 PM, July 11, sponsored by ILSRA and Illinoiscarry.com. Details here. They cleverly applied for a permit to have it on a State, not City, owned site.
Texas: proposal to allow guns on college campuses
Story here.
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (4)
DC stumbling on dealing with Heller
Story here. I assume the reference to DC having about three weeks to comply reflects that fact that the Supremes haven't issued the mandate yet. An appellate court's opinion is just that, an opinion. Then there's a delay to see if anyone moves for rehearing. After that, the court issues a mandate, which is the actual order to the lower court to take action. I suspect it's going to be a little longer than that, since I think the Court of Appeals has to pass the mandate on to the District Court, and then the District Court must issue the actual injunction ordering DC to take action.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford....
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (16)
ACLU Blog update
Say Uncle notes they're up to 700 comments, with those favorable to ACLU's position countable on one hand.
UPDATE: I'd second the suggestion that anyone looking for a place to send donations look at the NRA Civil Liberties Defense Fund. As a pre-emptive note, for folks who have complaints about NRA, remember this is a separate organization: it's governed by a small board of trustees, entirely pro-gun attorneys, and I'm told put hundreds of thousands, as in a major portion of its annual budget, into supporting the Heller case. If you click on the tabs at the top of its page you can see the type of litigation and scholarship they support.
Britain: mandatory jail time for carrying a knife?
Story here, with a note that presently 17% of those found with a knife get jail time.
Hat tip to Norman Heath...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (3)
RedState update on Heller
Here. Pretty funny!
Permalink · humor · Comments (3)
Brady's grading system and "sensible gun laws"
Howard Nemerov's analysis is here. Brady Campaign grades States A-F on how their gun laws match Brady's ideal. Nemerov's statistical work suggests that (1) high Brady grades correlate to low gun ownership -- restrictive laws reduce the number of persons who can own guns and (2) they also correlate to higher violent crime and homicide rates. The highest rough quartile (averaging B+) had a violent crime rate of 610 and a homicide rate of 7.6 . The lowest quartile, average grade D-, had a violent crime rate of 320 and a homcide rate of 4.2.
So Brady's "commonsense" gun laws are associated with inhibited gun ownership and higher violent crime and murder rates.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (5)
Conference in DC August 1
Got an email alert from Second Amendment Foundation. BTW, if anyone is attending and can use tips of cheap rooms and getting around, I'm an expert there:
Students for Conceal Carry on Campus (SCCC) will be having their first National Conference on Friday, August 1st at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. funded by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
This conference is a great opportunity for those who care about their 2nd Amendment Right to come together and learn from each other.
Students for Concealed Carry on campus is a non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 30,000 college students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens who support the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. Key conference speakers include: In addition to myself, John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, Alan Gura (argued recent Supreme Court case involving the DC gun ban and many more. For more information visit:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2383535699,
For students that want to attend the conference but are a little strapped for cash, SCCC and SAF can help. Any student traveling over 750 miles to D.C. is eligible for a travel scholarship up to $250. You will receive reimbursement if you bring your student I.D. and travel receipts to the conference. SCCC and SAF will also provide one night free in a hotel if you so desire. SCCC and SAF cannot guarantee that you will get your own room. Funds are limited and you may have to room with another member of SCCC if you come alone.
Once your transportation and lodging needs are settled, forward your information to [email protected] to reserve your spot at the conference.
As a Second Amendment Foundation supporter, we hope you will consider this great opportunity for talking, learning, and networking with young activists across the country. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Alan M. Gottlieb
Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: [email protected]
More on Obama and Joyce Foundation
Permalink · Politics · Comments (3)
Still more on Britain's knife culture
16 year old lured to an ambush where he is beaten and stabbed to death.
"Meanwhile a 17-year-old boy who lives near where Shakilus was attacked said stabbings were depressingly commonplace - and often happened for no reason at all.
He said: "If he hadn't died, no one would have cared about this, it would have just been another stabbing. You grow up around here, you always see the yellow boards around and then you wake up and see 20 police vans outside."
More here, with an interesting typo in the headline.
UPDATE: a Briton has up an online petition to allow firearms ownership there. He notes he's been robbed at knifepoint twice, and includes some statistics
Permalink · non-US · Comments (1)
A few disappointments in Heller
I love the result, but the academic in me sees a few disappointments in the method.
MAJORITY: Scalia begins with a clear statement of his method: "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”" This suggests original public meaning, with some textualism: the issue is not so much what did the Framers as individuals intend (nor even the First Congress), but rather what did Americans as a whole understand they were ratifying.
Yet he doesn't consider what is probably the strongest evidence of public understanding: Tench Coxe's newpaper articles discussing the Bill of Rights, which were printed in New York, Boston, and Philadelpha, and referred to the right to keep and bear "their private arms."
DISSENT: Justice Stevens vaguely implies his method. Original intent (i.e., the purposes of the Framers themselves): "Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." Note references to "framers" and "proponents."
His conclusion is that "It [the 2A] was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States."
In order to reach this, the dissent has to ignore Argument I of the Academics' brief (pasted in extended remarks below). Basically, yes, there were Framers who worried about Congress disarming the militias by neglecting to arm them. But what they wanted was something entirely separate from the future 2A, and they lost. The Framers were articulate men. They did not try to say "States can arm militias if Congress fails to do so" by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead, the concerned Framers came right out and said what they wanted: "each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same."
The reason you don't see that in the Bill of Rights is (1) Madison omitted it and (2) when the proponents pushed it as an addition in the First Senate, they lost it. I'd say that's decisive against the dissent's reading of the Amendment.
Continue reading "A few disappointments in Heller"
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (2)
Randy Barnett on interpretation vs. construction
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, with application to Heller.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
More on the British experience
"FRENCH STUDENTS TORTURED AND STABBED 250 TIMES IN TARANTINO-STYLE RAID ON LONDON HOME"
"It also sent shockwaves across France where the loss of two of the country's finest young minds was seen as proof of Britain's spiral into knife-obsessed lawlessness."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (6)
FBI director on Heller
FBI Director Robert Mueller says "weapons harm people, and more often than not they harm the people carrying them.".
Say Uncle asks is he going to take his agents's guns away, then?
From Days of Our Trailers.
I'm assuming FBI weapons policy is similar to local LEOs -- you must, not just may, carry at all times, even when off duty. If so, the incongruity of the director of thousands of agents, who are required to carry at all times, stating that guns harm people, usually their owners, is rather obvious.
I've often wondered if federal law enforcement agencies wouldn't be better governed if you canned the director and top brass, then stood at the front door and hired the first dozen street-level agents who walked past to replace them, letting them draw straws for the highest rank.
A piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
By the co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence. It's not what you'd expect, tho.
"never felt so good about a decision rendered by the court's conservative majority. I never thought that I would agree with Associate Justices Scalia or Thomas. (I generally despise the two, on the basis of their legal renderings.)
But Thursday's ruling makes perfect sense to this Democrat. (Alito and Roberts were spot on as well.)
The court's conservative majority decided to ignore the liberals who believe that the only way to make our communities safer is to impose further gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans."
Liberal vs. conservative wings of the Court
Prof. Bernstein has some interesting thoughts at Cato Online.
"The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides.
Or perhaps it's not as remarkable as we've been led to think. Consider the Court's First Amendment decisions."
He points out that the "conservative wing" has been more respectful of freedom of expression, assembly, and religion than the "liberal wing," and the same with takings of property under the 5th Amendment.
"There are many ideological differences between the conservative and liberal justices on the Supreme Court. But a consistent, stronger liberal devotion to supporting individual rights and civil liberties against assertions of government power isn't one of them."
Via Instapundit....
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
DC's gun crime
From an article in the Washingtonian:
"Gun violence is relatively rare across the Potomac River in Virginia, despite the fact that guns are easily bought and registered there. And there is much less gunplay in urbanized parts of Montgomery County, just over the line from DC.
Why? Activists outside the criminal-justice system blame poverty and the flow of illegal guns into DC; police and prosecutors point to cases like that of D’Angelo Thomas."
Police stopped his car; four guys and five pistols inside. Three of them were on probation -- and Thomas on probation for robbery (i.e., he was a felon in possession) and a gun violation. But DC hadn't done the paperwork to charge him in time for the initial appearance. The judge dismissed charges against all four. The paperwork arrived in the courtroom ten minutes later, but he'd already been released (I guess DC can be fast at that) and was gone. 11 days later he fatally shot someone.
"“Suspects arrested in DC don’t fear the criminal-justice system,” says Edgar Domenech, head of the DC field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. “The majority of the gun cases go through Superior Court, and they don’t see any real jail time.”
DC police officer Tamika Hampton says she has made a number of arrests for CPWL—carrying a pistol without a license. “They get right back out on the street,” she says. “They know it when I make the arrest. After I process them, they walk out of court the same time I do. They laugh at me.”"
.......
"Sounds tough, but any change in gun enforcement laws has to pass through a DC Council that sometimes seems to favor criminals over cops.
Since the 1970s, when it passed the landmark ban on handguns, the 13-member council has been among the nation’s most liberal legislatures on law-enforcement problems.
Until the law was changed two years ago, even a convicted felon caught with a gun in DC could be charged at most with a misdemeanor and would likely serve no time.
In early 2005 then-mayor Anthony Williams proposed reforms to toughen penalties on many crimes, including gun possession. Judiciary Committee chair Phil Mendelson held the bill in his committee for a year and a half.... Mendelson also doesn’t believe in holding violent offenders while they are awaiting trial. Mayor Williams had proposed changes in the law that would make it easier for judges to hold suspects. Mendelson stripped the provisions from the bill."
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (7)
How will ACLU react to Heller? Pt. 2
They can't believe it. Say Uncle has the story. Not to say I'm tired, but I'd blogged their reactions right after the ruling--they denounce the Heller ruling as putting a "strait jacket" on legislatures. This has got to be a first for ACLU, complaining that a constitution right is a strait jacket for the benevolent and wise government! Under the Bushitler Administration, no less.
Oh, well. At least the ACCU doesn't shout that gun rights people are on the side of the criminal. I suppose their taking the side of the Gitmo detainees put that out of the question.
UPDATE: Holy cow, are they taking a pounding in comments on their blog! Over 130 so far, members announcing they are quitting, donors saying they're going to give to pro-gun groups instead.
With regards their Foundation funding, a comment below links to a page where you can click on foundation grants for them. Joyce Foundation is a minor player, but Ford Foundation and Tides Foundation have given millions. I'm on an email list where a law prof. pointed out the national HQ also gets lots of money from the NYC and Los Angeles chapters, which are antigun. So, yes, they do have a financial disincentive to acknowledging the 2A.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (16)
Cross petition for cert. in Parker/Heller denied
Orders here. This was the cross-petition by the Shelly Parker and the others whom the DC Circuit held had no standing to sue, under the Circuit's quite narrow case law (which is applicable to gun cases only; any other challenge is judged with a very broad test of standing). The Circuit held that one plaintiff, Dick Heller, had standing since he had applied for a pistol permit and been turned down.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (5)
How will ACLU react to Heller?
It puts them in quite a dilemma. Their past supposed neutrality on the 2A was premised on their position that Miller settled that it wasn't an individual right, so they didn't have to consider it one. Heller takes care of that nicely. So what are they to do? Some thoughts at Concurring Opinions. (Via Instapundit, who notes that this will bring to a head their tension between being a civil liberties group and being a limosine/left political group). I once heard speculation that there was another factor: major foundation funding that might dry up if they acknowledged the 2A.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (6)
Georgia case on airports
A challenge to an Atlanta airport rule that prohibits firearms in the parking lots, lobbies and restaurants, notwithstanding the recent State legislation allowing carrying in public transit, restaurants, etc.. Story here. Georgiacarry.org is carrying the organizational ball.
Hat tips to readers Jonas Salk, Shawn C., and Jim Kindred...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (4)
Heller's effect on the Presidential campaign
Bob Novak writes on it in WashPo.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Chicago may rework gun law
Or so Daley ambiguously suggests. I recall that once during my days in the Federal government, an agency suggested rewriting a rule in order to moot a test case against it, and after research I concluded it wouldn't work.