« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »
October 2008
NRA President John Sigler on the election
Hard hitting Townhall column here.
Scott Bach's take is the same.
I'll just add the following from when Obama ran for Congress in 2000:
“If elected to Congress, Obama says he will continue working to solve the most important issues that affect the South Side of Chicago, including education, health care, juvenile justice, gun control and urban development.”
Campaign dirty tricks against gun owners?
NRA reports that gun owners in key States are receiving phone calls, fraudulently claiming to be from NRA, and stating that it has endorsed Obama.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (8)
Navy SEALs to use Blackhawk uniforms
A good story about it here. We saw the uniforms at their HQ. Each arm and leg has two built-in tourniquets, with handles concealed in velcro-sealed pouches. In the event of a severe extremity wound (say a limb shredded by an IED) blood flow can completely occluded in ten seconds. With body armor and Kevlar helmets, about 60% of preventable combat deaths are due to bleeding out from extremity wounds.
Dan Cooper resigns
Story here. Snowflakes in Hell gets a nice plug:
""This needs to get around," wrote a blogger who calls himself "Sebastian, a thirty something, self professed 'gun nut' living somewhere in Pennsylvania." He added: "Gun owners need to know which companies sell their interests down the river. Here's contact info for Cooper Firearms. I would talk to them, and be sure they know Obama's record, why you're not voting for him, and why you'll never buy one of their products."
The company said in a statement to USA TODAY that it had received more than a thousand emails over the controversy.
When the USA TODAY story was first published, Cooper Firearms posted a statement saying that Dan Cooper had only given money to Obama in order to "to help defeat Hillary Clinton" in the Democratic primaries and to protest the shifting of American jobs overseas. The statement said Cooper had then given money to the McCain and the Republican National Committee. Election records show no Cooper donations to McCain or the RNC, and the statement was later taken down."
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Gun issues in the election
At Politico, Roger Simon asks why Palin and the old fellow aren't using the gun issue. OK, so her running mate's record on the issue isn't exactly perfect -- it's a heck of a lot better than that of the opposing ticket. If a candidate only argues issues where one side is 100% and the other zero, he isn't going to have a lot to talk about.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (13)
Cooper Arms followup
From the FEC webpage:
Here's the image of a $2100 Obama contribution by a Daniel Cooper of Pound Ridge, NY, no occupation given. The FEC webpage lists this under Daniel Cooper/Copper Firearms, I believe by mistake.
Here's an image of a 2/6/08 donation of $1,000 by Dan Cooper of Akron OK, President/CEO of Cooper Firearms. (For some strange reason the report says his cumulative donations are $3100 -- maybe the Obama Campaign got him confused with the NY Cooper, since this would be the total of the above two).
Here's the image of a 2/6/08 $800 contribution by Dan Cooper of Akron OH, President/CEO of Cooper Firearms of Montana. Cumulative donations given as $3200, which matches nothing.
Here's the image of the $800 refund made the same day to him. Cumulative donations now become $3100 again.
All quite confusing. It looks as if his donations were under the limit, and the Obama Campaign didn't have to send the refund. My theory: the Obama Campaign (whose reports these are) got him confused with the NY Cooper, and somehow thought he'd reached his limit ($3200), and thus sent him the refund. The FEC made the same mistake. And OpenSecrets all the other secondary sources picked up the FEC mistake and are reporting that.
If you do a search for him on the FEC webpage, you'll see what I mean. His address for some reason is given as Montana, even tho every image of paperwork gives his address as in Ohio. It confutes him with the New York Cooper, and even gets amounts wrong, $900 instead of $800.
The above was just trying to settle a mystery. The core question is why did the owner of a firearms company donate to an anti-gun candidate, then lamely claim it was only intended to defeat Hillary, when what stirred everything up was his endorsing Obama quite recently in a news story.
Cooper Arms exec backs Obama, perhaps with illegal contribution
USA Today ran a story noting that Dan Cooper, owner and CEO of Cooper Arms, is backing and contributing to Obama. It said he's given $3,300, "on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention."
Snowflakes in Hell notes that he's caught flak, and is now claiming that he donated nine months ago, with the purpose of defeating Hillary, and that's he's now given to McCain. Snowflakes eats up that alibi: there's no record of a McCain donation. It appears it was after the convention. But as it was the ILL senate race, he was hardly motivated by seeing Obama defeat Hillary.
[Comment on how he might have gone over limits deleted here, since I investigated and show hard date in the post above. Basically, OpenSecrets and other secondary sources were picking up on FEC errors, and then adding some more of their own.]
UPDATE: I followed Bitter's suggestion and looked up the FEC records. Very confusing, since they have under his name and address two different Daniel Coopers who donate to Obama, and other errors, so I checked the images:
1/17: a New Yorker, no job given, donated $2100.
2/6: An Ohioan, CEO of Cooper Arms, gives $1000.
2/6: Sane person and occupation gives $800
2/6: Same person and occupation gets a refund of $800.
2/6: Same person and occupation gives $1000.
No reason given for the refund (-800), and the listing of cumulative donations doesn't match anything (they show for most of these cumulative donations of $3100 or 3200). Egad. All are for the primary tho, and the Ohio Cooper seems to have given $2800, going over the limit, which was probably remedied by the refund).
Permalink · Politics · Comments (20)
Purchase delayed in DE due to age and gender
Story here. The first level of permit review delayed it because she "too old and a woman." The explanation added that they'd run seven years of records to see if she already had a gun.
The problem with the seven years of records is, the records were supposed to have been destroyed within sixty days....
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (9)
Officer mistakenly shoots defender
Story here. The mistake seems understandable: officers respond to "shots fired," encounter a woman and children fleeing a home who report an armed man inside, announce and enter, encounter an armed man coming down the hall. Unfortunately, he was the homeowner; he was apparently coming back from subduing the perp, and either didn't hear the announcement, or under the stress didn't think to put down his gun.
It does put me in mind of a thought Prof. Bob Cottrol had, which was that most of the LE training targets he'd seen with sketches of people on them involved clearly good guys or clearly bad guys. Bad guys are snarling and trying to bring a gun to bear on you, etc.. Perhaps, he thought, it'd be good to have some ambiguous targets, armed man but not trying to bring gun to bear, etc., just to train for situations where shoot/no shoot is ambiguous.
Hat tip to reader William Taggart
Article on Heller and self defense
Abstract and downloadable article here.
The thesis I find a bit confusing: it talks of applying the 2A to the states without 14th A incorporation, but seems to be talking about applying it via 14th A due process incorporation (the right of self defense being fundamental) rather than privileges or immunities incorporation.
UPDATE: the need for incorporation is that the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore, back in the 1830s, ruled that the federal Bill of Rights only limits the federal government. You want to be protected against state action, put it in your state constitution and sue in state court.
It's not an unreasonable legal position -- James Madison wanted another amendment to require States to comply with essentially the First Amendment, and Congress rejected it. So some states had establishments of religion into the 1830s or 1840s, and the slave states rigorously punished printing of any anti-slavery statements, or giving of anti-slavery speeches, up thru 1865. The 4th Amendment restriction on unreasonable searches wasn't applied to state action until, if I remember, 1960.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (10)
FFL helps collar a perp
Story here. The best part:
"Was he nervous about the "sting"?
"I wasn't," he said. "We have more guns than he has.""
Lautenburg Amendment going to Supreme Court
Summary here. It's a question of statutory construction. Defendant was convicted of ordinary misdemeanor battery in 1994. The victim was his then-wife. Since it was ordinary battery, fact she was his wife was not an element of the offense. Ten years later he's busted for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Question: given its rather ambiguous wording, does Lautenburg require (1) that the person be convicted of an offense whose elements are threat or use of force, and against a domestic partner, or (2) that the person just be convicted of an offense whose element is threat or use of force, but in the federal case we'll prove it was in fact against a domestic partner.
Oral argument is Nov. 10.
UPDATE: the only question is the meaning of the statute -- constitutionality wasn't challenged. The petitioner's brief doesn't mention the Second Amendment (possibly it was written before Heller), but it might come up at argument. since statutes affecting constitutionally-protected conduct are often narrowly construed.
Permalink · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (9)
Gad... victimization at sea
You've probably seen the images of Somali pirates, usually a handful of guys in small boats, with AK-47s or a few RPGs, taking over a commercial vessel. I wondered how (most of these guys would be toast to an M1A, let alone a .50 M2 -- or a stick of dynamite dropped over the side), and read that commercial vessels are forbidden to be armed. Now there's a proposal to allow armament, and here's some peculiar responses:
"Currently, pirates often fire indiscriminately during an attack but don't aim to kill or injure crew. The pirates usually use assault rifles but have rocket-propelled grenades; some reports also say they have mini-cannon.
"If someone onboard a ship pulls a gun, will the other side pull a grenade?" Mody asked."
Clue: if you're 30 feet above the guy, and 50 yards out, does it matter?
""The standard approach is for (pirates) to come in with all guns blazing at the bridge because when a boat is stopped it's easier to board," said David Johnson, director of British security firm Eos. "But if you have guns onboard, you are going to escalate the situation. We don't want to turn that part of the world into the Wild West.""
Hmm... they come in, "all guns blazing at the bridge," but you don't want to escalating things, or turn things into "the Wild West"????
petition against pellet guns JROTC courses
From Freedom States Alliance (creators of the Gun Guys, and beneficiary of Joyce Foundation) comes this petition to ban use of pellet guns in high school Junior ROTC.
"Children who are taught to use weapons and violence to solve problems will not always enter the military. Some will make violence their civilian career and they may not remain in San Diego -- they could settle anywhere in the world "
Yup, give a kid a pellet gun and you'll turn him into a violent offender. I think Alan Korwin's proposal to classify gun phobia as a form of emotional illness makes sense in this setting.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
Motion in Chicago gun ban case
Here. As would be expected, beautifully written -- clearly expressed, and not a word to spare.
Hat tip to reader R. Vance...
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (2)
Bureaucrats' approach to self defense
Via RicketyClick comes this: a Houston defense lawyer has posted the DEA guidelines on use of lethal force. He notes that trainees are given fact patterns and then expected to recite from the standards verbatim. I'm sure that is solid training ... in memory skills.
Only a bureaucracy ... the document is probably 8-10 pages long. A long checklist of factors, which would be of less than no use in a confrontation. With ridiculous standards such as if a knife wielder is aggressive, it may justify use of lethal force IF he is within 21 feet of you. I suppose you are expected to bring a tape measure (and what shooter thinks in terms of feet rather than yards?). Actually, it says use may be justified if he is 21 feet from you, not within 21 feet, so I guess you cannot fire if he is five feet from you. [I don't doubt, as commentors note, that a knife-wielder can close 21 feet in less than your time to draw and fire. But to teach it as some hard and fast rule, as if there is no reason to use force if the guy is 22 feet out, or pretend that with a guy charging you you can estimate the distance, is going a bit far.]
And many criteria are based on probable cause? (p/c). That's for arrests or searches, commonly defined as "strong suspicion." If I were to use lethal force, I'd hope it was based on more than a strong suspicion that the other person posed a threat.
Not to mention instructions such as identify yourself as "DEA". How about "police"? I know what DEA is, and DEA knows what it is, but there are probably a lot of people who have no idea what DEA, ATF, DOJ, etc. stand for.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (10)
NYPD police gun discharge study
Pdf here. A number of interesting results. A majority of shots were fired at 1-2 yards, and hit rate was only 43% at that range (both results not uncommon, actually). At 3-7 yards this drops to 23%, then at 8-15 yards rises again to 40%. Perhaps the officers have the ability to take better aim there, or maybe it's a fluke of the small sample size,
What's very interesting is that only 45% occurred on duty, in uniform. 36% were, I assume, undercover, and 18% off duty and out of uniform. From the individual reports, many of the undercover shootings did not involve a gunfight with the suspect: the officer was investigating one event when he saw an unrelated crime taking place (in one case, bank robbers had the bad luck to try to car-jack an undercover officer).
32 shootings were dog-related, 28 involving pit bulls.
On the less pleasant side, 26 accidental discharges, which fortunately resulted in no deaths but several injuries.
Military gets new sniper equipment, techniques
Story here. I find it interesting that all the equipment is civilian invention and manufacture. That may not seem unusual today, but it wasn't but a few wars ago that everyone carried government-designed rifles made in government arsenals (come to think of it, the one civilian made component was the scope sights, issued in small quantities), and firing government-made ammo.
Hat tip to George Mason 1776...
UPDATE: during wars, it was common to farm out gun manufacture to private companies, because the gov't arsenals couldn't keep up, and private industry came in to make arsenal-designed guns. I think the pivotal thing is that private industry has come out with a bunch of devices useful to shooters, which also happen to be useful to military snipers, whereas the military itself ignored that area. Better variable power scopes, rangefinders, backpacks, hydration rigs, etc.
I hope the military is looking into what we saw on the tour of Blackhawk Product Group's HQ. Camo uniforms with two tourniquets built into each sleeve and pants leg.
UPDATE: Blackhawk doesn't sell to civilians? I think you've got the wrong Blackhawk. I'm looking at their catalog right now. Their webpage lets you order online. And I've been to their brick-and-mortar store, open to anyone who walks in.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (8)
A First Amendment issue
And a biggie.... A Wisconsin electoral candidate faces criminal charges based on his campaign literature that describes people as supporting him, which is alleged to be false. I can see some serious First Amendment problems here, but suspect (strangely) that the charges will be dropped after the election.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (0)
Bureaucratic fun, part three
Here's the legal opinion on the Samish Tribe, in pdf. Courtesy of reader Joshua Tallent, who pdf'd it.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (0)
Non gun mass murders
Sensibly Progressive has a post on nongun mass murders.
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (2)
Justice Thomas on interpreting the Constitution
Excerpts from his Wriston Lecture:
"As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. ... Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .
Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."
Well put. Makes me again wish that he'd ask questions during oral argument. He has a good voice, a sharp mind, and a way with words.
I find it encouraging that the Court is taking interpretative methodology seriously. Textualism (the words are the key, some some unwritten intent) vs. original intent (of the Framers who wrote) vs. original public understanding (of Americans at large who ratified) vs. pragmatism (figure out what the Framers intended to design and construe so as to accomplish that end... which tends to morph into figure out how I would have designed it and so construe it). At least there's serious discussion. Until about a decade ago, courts just, bluntly, made this ___ up as they went along, throwing in a few quotes from the Framers as window dressing.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (9)
Old time LEO passes away
A friend of mine, Carl Behrens, just died, age 85. He'd been president of Tucson Rod and Gun Club way back, and a Pima County Sheriff's deputy even farther back. Probably in the 1950s and thereafter. Back in the days when there, er, weren't a lot of rules.
He was absolutely fearless. Lots of mafioso retire to Tucson, and the usual rule is that you don't practice your business locally. One, I think it was Bats Battaglia, did. One day Carl visits a business in his patrol district, and finds the owner has a broken leg. Says it was an accident. A few weeks later Carl visits again, and he has a broken arm. Carl questions him and he admits Battaglia's guys are shaking him down for protection money.
Carl knows a restaurant where Battaglia likes to eat dinner. He goes there, out of uniform, and when the mobster goes to the men's room, follows him. When Bats turns around and zips up, Carl (who was a very big guy) grabs him by his coat lapels, lifts him up, and snarls that he's a deputy, he knows he's been shaking down businesses in his patrol district, and if it ever happens again he will visit upon Bats all the injuries that have been inflicted on anyone in his district. Then he leaves.
The shakedowns stopped. The mobster had met a cop who talked his language. I'll add more stories in extended remarks later today.
Continue reading "Old time LEO passes away"
Permalink · Personal · Comments (4)
Even bureaucrats can have a sense of humor
Here's a scan of the original opinion. It's not the clearest image -- it's been sitting in my files for 21 years now. Click on the thumbnail to get it full size.
This is the original opinion she signed (mine is unsigned, since it came from my personal chron file--I would have the opinion as it went to her, the signed one would have gone into the departmental files. The tribe applied for listing, Fish and Wildlife kicked it to us, the legal shop, for an opinion. We all knew it was a publicity gig for the Tribe. Gale signed this opinion, and sent it to Fish and Wildlife, then the other bureaucrats got worried and had her sign another, perfectly serious, one. Fish and Wildlife in the meantime had passed the first opinion to the media and they loved it. But both opinions remained in the files. I'm told that when she was nominated the first opinion was hunted down and shredded. I don't have a copy of the second, serious, one since I didn't draft it.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (5)
Yes, even bureaucrats can have humor
Back in my Interior days, a small Indian tribe wrote requesting to be listed under the Endangered Species Act, as a publicity move.
I wrote up a really hilarious opinion for the Associate Solicitor's signature, and she signed it. Later others became terrified, wrote another opinion that took it very seriously.
When the Associate, Gale Norton, was nominated for Interior Secretary, there was a frantic effort to find and deep six the first opinion. I thought my copy was the only survivor.
A friend just pointed out that he'd found it in a December 2001 issue of Harper's.
Update: if by original document, you mean the Samish petition, I didn't keep that. I kept my own files when I left Interior back in 1992. Understand, every document was produced with seven copies for various filing systems. But you always made an eighth copy for yourself.
Because you'd never find it in the other seven filing systems.
Permalink · Personal · Comments (5)
Is Judge Posner a "conservative" judge?
The NY Times article on conservative judges criticizing Heller says so, but a post at Blakanization argues otherwise. (Read the comments, too). The argument is that Posner's method -- pretty much pure pragmatism, with no great regard for traditional tools such as textualism, original intent, construction by principles of language, etc.. I'd guess the NY Times author had trouble with the idea that "he's a pragmatist, which is neither left nor right," and went with the label that fit the story he wanted to write.
UPDATE: a humorous reference to Judge Posner during Supreme Court arguments. Go to bottom of p. 37 and top of 38. For some reason, I suspect Justice Alito and Judge Posner know each other, and Alito probably emailed him the transcript as soon as it was available.
Practical aspects of campus gun bans
Liberated self has a post regarding Ohio State. The newspaper finally carried a story about on-campus crime, because an officer had to shoot a perp after he stabbed another officer. But, as pointed out, there had been seven robberies within the past seven days that went uncovered. Most involve gangs of perps who travelled a fair distance to get to the easy pickings on campus.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (1)
Brady pledge against student gun violence
"National distribution of the Student Pledge sends a message that is essential if we are to reverse the tide of violence in this country: that violence is neither inevitable nor an abstract force against which we are powerless." Gad, what meaningless words. "Distribution" of a piece of paper "sends a message" (I'd hope so, unless it were blank) that is "essential" (hardly) if we are to "reverse the tide of violence."
Apart from the consideration that a person who is not deterred by the thought of life in prison is not likely to be deterred by the thought of breaking a promise, the pledge only says that the signer will not "use a gun to settle a personal problem or dispute." Apparently the Campaign is perfectly OK with the signer using a knife, club, or fists to settle a "personal problem," which means it is hardly aimed at "violence."
After dinner annoyance
Sitting back, relaxing on couch after dinner, red wine in hand. In shorts, this is the desert, legs crossed.
I feel an annoying tickle on my right leg. Something crawling slowly thru my hair there. Look down and see this fellow (dead in this photo):
Killed 'im, but spilled the wine on myself and ruined a pair of shorts. Must learn greater composure. I know by experience that their lethality is greatly overrated.
UPDATE: chuckle, yes, I should have worded that more precisely. I wouldn't get THAT upset at seeing a "deadly" bark scorpion on my leg. I've been stung 3x by them, never bothered to go to an ER. A doc friend told me all the data on lethality involves infants in rural South America, where medical help is far away. For me -- I'd take their sting over that of a bee. You feel a stab like a needle, smarts some, and then an electrical tingling goes up your leg, lasts for anywhere from eight to 36 hours. In a bad case, walking is a little difficult because leg won't coordinate perfectly. I'm told the bigger ones aren't like this, and the venom hurts pretty badly.
Article on Heller and a few critics
In the New York Times. And, despite the source, almost objective.
UPDATE: Bob Levy and William Mellor respond.
Personal take: the judges are of the brand of conservatives that dislike "judicial activism" (by which standard some of the liberal wing, esp. Souter, would be conservative). OK, but I can't see why, even with that approach, they cannot draw a line between:
Roe v. Wade, which recognized a non-enumerated right, and imposed non-enumerated restrictions upon it; and
DC v. Heller, which recognized an enumerated right, and suggested non-enumerated restrictions upon it.
The non-enumerated restrictions shouldn't be an issue. In the First Amendment we have tons of those. Free exercise of religion doesn't allow human sacrifice (tho it may animal sacrifice) or polygamy, freedom of the press doesn't allow kiddie porn (tho it does of computer-generated kiddies), freedom of speech doesn't cover disturbing the peace, threatening the president, etc. Nothing in the Bill of Rights (or its history) about human sacrifice, polygamy, non-computer generated kiddie porn, disturbing the peace, etc. So do they consider these non-enumerated *exceptions* proof of impermissible judicial activism?
Hat tip to Ambiguous Ambiguae...
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (16)
Trouble in Ohio
Story here. I see the lawsuits coming...
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Coltsville designated a National Historic Landmark
Story here.
DC cab drivers argue for firearm rights
Story here. The new DC law allows possession in your business premises, and their argument was that a cabbie's cab is his premises. But DC rejected that.
Cabbie there told me some hair-raising stories. They're easy to ambush: decoy gets in cab, asks to be taken to a location where the ambush team awaits. Cabbies used to refuse to go into dangerous areas at night, but there were complaints they were discriminating against the poorer areas, and now DC would threaten your license if you declined to take someone to a risky area at 3 AM.
One night he had that happen to him, but the second the fare was out of his cab he locked the door, just as several guys grabbed the door handles.
He then peeled out of there in reverse. He said this was standard procedure for a cabbie, because they loved to lure you into a street with no other outlet, and then pull a car or two across the only way out. You have to get moving fast enough to ram past this.
New movie
Off topic, but it's The Third Jihad, produced by an Arizonan (saw it in the morning paper). The review said that the film explains how, to radical moslems, duplicity and deception are as important as violence.
And that the film's producer sometimes takes criticism when he attends mosque.
Soccer mom gets CCW permit back
She had a permit, but open carried at soccer games. The other soccer moms got bent out of shape, and the sheriff revoked her CCW permit (he didn't like her openly carrying, so he put her in a position where openly is the only way she can carry. Makes a lot of sense.) Fortunately, a court has overruled the sheriff.
Hat tip to reader Dave Ladin.... who sends a followup story and a note the spamcatcher blocked:
"Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games"
"Gregg-Bolognese said some...fathers have threatened to take a gun away from
anyone who arrives at a game with one, an idea she tries to squelch."
QED proof that she needs to carry in that thug league.
______________________________________________________
My own thought: perhaps projection, in the psychological sense? A person knows they have a mental issue, doesn't want to admit it, and claims that others have the problem. "It's not me, it's you!" A nasty drunk get loaded and nasty and tells someone else they're a mean drunk.
What the unnamed person proposes: "if that lady legally carries something I don't want her carrying, I'll just assault her and take it."
And why doesn't he want her to have it? "She might be unpredictably violent."
UPDATE: Sebastian has a good point. And even here in the southwest, open carry in town is rare. In the desert, sure. Only a fool greenie wanders around unarmed and without a canteen, where the law is nonexistent in a practical sense (and even when it does apply, rattlesnakes and bears and such are notoriously ignorant of it). But in town... you can leave the gun in the car, and crime isn't terribly high.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (15)
Audio CDs of Gun Rights Policy Conference available
Here's an order form. Price is $27 for about 8-10 hours, as I recollect.
Software piracy ... by a government agency?
Allegations here.
It's not the first time.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
Unpublished opinions
Glad to see someone else has heartburn over them.
My experience with them is at the State appellate level. Over the last few decades, the State courts adopted a custom of issuing unpublished opinions, i.e., opinions that the West Reporters (the standard books you go to to find decisions) are instructed not to publish and which, even if you find one, you cannot cite as precedent. In part this was understandable. Lots of appellate decisions (esp. on the criminal side) rule on nothing interesting or noteworthy, or point out that this case is obviously governed by earlier opinions. No sense wasting paper reporting them.
But I've also seen some where the ruling clearly WOULD have added to or changed the law in a significant way, and which I'm convinced were unpublished simply because the court wanted to go in a way contrary to the law. So it did it, and didn't have to worry about this decision binding the court in a later case where it did want to follow the law.
UPDATE: These are State appellate judges. I think they are on the ballot with approve or disapprove (in the 30 year history of the system, I think there's been just one who lost that vote). That may have affected one unpub that I got. The appeal concerned the "natural life" sentence, then recently created by the legislature as a "real life sentence" (ordinary life was parole-eligible after 25 years).
The Arizona Constitution has a provision that every bill must concern one subject. Case law says the purpose was to prevent omnibus bills where you round up votes by sticking in things that appeal to other legislators, attaching their pet ideas to get them to agree with a bill that, alone, they might vote against.
The natural life sentence was created in a monster of a bill that was even entitled "Omnibus Bill." It had everything. I remember around a dozen provisions -- one that I remember established some sort of a bureaucracy to regulate collector auto sales. Most of it didn't even concern the criminal code, and natural life was just a couple of sentences buried in it. Presumably somebody wanted it and just stuck it on.
I forget what the court of appeals said, but they managed to claim the bill had a single subject and wasn't an omnibus bill. Bottom line -- they were NOT going to be blamed for striking down natural life sentences (and also every other provision of that bill, thus riling the entire legislature). I think they made it unpublished because the reasoning they had to use was tenuous to the point of humor, and they didn't want to be bound in future cases by a ruling that essentially made the single purpose provision meaningless.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (7)
Inside information from BATFE
1. Deputy Director Edgar Domenech just got a government "golden parachute" out. It's impossible to sort out the internal politics involved, but he'd been demoted and said it was a result of exposing wasteful spending by the prior director. (GIven the byzantine politics of ATF higher levels, it's hard to sort out who is a whistleblower and who's back-stabbing, except that a lower level agent is always doing to be treated as the latter. Report fraud, waste, or abuse as a street level agent, and you're toast. Do it as a high enough guy to get WashPo coverage, and you have a shot).
2. The ATF director has just been given a report from the Inspector General that is pretty devastating. MAJOR screwups, their internal affairs refusing to check out complaints about those, etc.. So now offices are being told to generate favorable publicity, quickly, because this is going to get out sometime soon.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (11)
Washington AG Opinion on pre-emption
Via Joe Olson, comes the Attorney General's Opinion (pdf, one meg) that the mayor of Seattle is proposing to violate.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (1)
Gun political website
GunVoter.com. It's an online forum. At the bottom is a forum for state races, and subdivisions for each State. If you know something about a candidate in your state, you can post it, and if you want to know, you can check them out. A very interesting idea.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (2)
Article on Breyer dissent in Heller
"The Last Progressive: Justice Breyer, Heller, and "Judicial Judgment". "Progressive" here doesn't have its modern political meaning, but refers to a pattern of legal thought that began in the last 19th and early 20th centuries. It was, however, quite deferential to legislatures.
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (4)
Pre-emption conflict in Seattle
The Washington Att'y General rules that the pre-emption law forbids cities to enact gun regulation, but the mayor of Seattle protests he has "a moral responsibility" to do so.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (5)
A one-on-one view of Obama and the gun issue
The Exec. Director of the Illinois State Rifle Ass'n has this to say:
"I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.
.......
In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him."
Hat tip to read Ambiguous Ambiguae.
Read the entire piece. It's hard-hitting, and from a guy who lobbied the IL legislature for 15 years.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (4)
Justifiable homicides up
So reports USA Today, with the note that it must reflect a "shoot first" mentality. A few problems: they're not up by much, and police justifiable homicides are up, also. One criminologist, who sounds like he spends too much time in the ivory tower, theorizes that because police have been issued more powerful arms, everyone else figures it's OK to shoot.
How about a simpler explanation? It looks to me as if the trend matches closely the trend for murder and violent crime rates. A peak in 1994, a steep decline thru 2000, modest increases since then. If violent attacks decline, shooting in self defense against violent attacks declines.
Hat tip to reader Charles Oldfield...
[As Gary Kleck notes in the article, only a minority of justified self-defense shootings are reported as such to the FBI. Remember reporting is voluntary, many smaller PDs don't take the time, and when reported it's the PD's initial judgment, not the final legal outcome.)
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (4)
RIP Billy Chapman
Just received word that longtime Texas activist Billy Chapman passed away this morning. He was napping in a chair on his porch and didn't wake up.
How ATFE treats agents who pursue bad guys
I've got a copy of a Justice Dept Office of Inspector General report on a case--can't post it because it gives names and addresses, and I haven't the pdf editing capability to delete them. But here's a summary:
ATF agent goes deep undercover, pursuing some genuinely violent bad guys. I'm talking outlaw biker gangs, prison gangs, that manner of thing. The report doesn't say, but I assume it took years. It's not like you can look up the Aryan Brotherhood or Mexican Mafia in the telephone book and send a membership application and wait for their magazine to tell you about their illegal activities. He got in, built some cases. Prosecutions result and his cover is of course blown (you can't testify under your alias).
He runs into a member of one of the groups, and they tell him outright that the group has their eye on him, will get even, he is dead meat, etc.. He requests from his supervisor an emergency transfer. With one of those the person and family are moved immediately, to a good distance, and given new identities (down to a credit history under their new names, so no one can trace them that way).
His supervisor handles it as an ordinary, voluntary, transfer. As in, it'll take weeks for approval, if we do approve, you can be transferred nearby, no new identity. In the meantime other reports are coming in. An informant who shared a cell with a prison gang leader reports that he saw a list of men marked for "hits" and noticed the agent's name on it. Etc., etc.. It becomes apparent that not one, but two groups well-known for killing people are both out to kill him.
The transfer is not modified. It's still voluntary, agent is in one duty station and would like to move to another for personal reasons, and HQ will process when they feel like it.
Maybe prison gangs have their own bureaucracy ("as district chief, I can approve ordinary hits, but hits on LEOs have to be approved by the regional director") but he survives long enough to get his transfer. An ordinary transfer, no new identity, etc.. (And he probably paid for the moving expenses).
The IG report of course faults the agency for how it was handled. But I suspect the folks who bumbled it and came close to getting their guy killed suffered no more than temporary embarassment, and that the agent will be regarded by his superiors as a pain in the neck for having complained.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (10)
Women !!!
An intruder breaks in, fires a shot, the couple arms, and this happens:
"According to Babecki, his wife would have fired the rifle, except that she feared she might kill her pet birds in their cage right outside the bedroom."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
A great beginning
"North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.
Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office."
Then it continues:
"That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held in a divided decision that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant."
It's Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting from a denial of certiorari. He must have had real fun with that one.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (9)
More from Britain
They're now instructing people who use barbed wire to keep out thieves to take it down lest a thief get hurt and sue.
"Mr Malcolm's plight comes just weeks after Bristol council angered allotment holders by urging them not to lock their sheds in case burglars damaged them breaking in."
You really couldn't make this stuff up...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
New gun blog
It's Tell Me Why. Just starting out, but will focus on products and tips.
Heller team reply on motion for attorneys' fees
Here, in pdf. As might be expected, it is well-written and merciless. In trying to hold the award down, DC apparently argued that it was a perfectly ordinary appeal, so Gura takes all their requests for extensions of time, which universally claimed that it was unbelievably complex, and sticks it in their craw. It ends with
"Defendants’ accusations of “windfall” are wholly unjustified, factually and legally.
Public interest law does not create great wealth, and this case would be no exception. Awarding
the full amount of the fee request will not bring Plaintiff’s counsels’ profits per partner anywhere
near the levels routinely enjoyed by Defendants’ attorneys. When public interest lawyers who
have risked significant amounts of their time and money vindicating a dormant civil right seek
fair compensation after years of being paid nothing, charges of avarice are inappropriate and not
well-taken."
Hat tip to Joe Olson....
Permalink · Parker v. DC · Comments (12)
Update on Akins Accelerator
Georgia Packing has a webpage with all the pleadings and motions in the case.
So much for calling 911, part 1,223
Another case of "dial 911 and die." This time the future victim was told to stop calling or she'd be arrested.
New book on the Heller case
It's due out in November, but can be pre-ordered. Author is Reason magazine's Brian Doherty, publisher is the Cato Institute. Here's a Cato video on the Heller case. Press release says:
In Gun Control on Trial, journalist Brian Doherty tells the full story behind the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. With exclusive, behind the scenes access throughout the case, Doherty delved into the issues of this monumental case to provide a compelling look at the inside stories, including:
The plaintiffs' fight for the right to protect themselves and their families from violent neighborhoods.
The activist lawyers who worked exhaustively to affirm that right.
The city officials who fought any attempt to give citizens the right to self-defense.
The story of the Heller case stretches back to long before the decision struck down D.C.'s restrictive gun ban and forward to the future of the political and legal battle over gun control in America. Doherty provides clear, concise explanations of the issues and battles that have driven the gun control debate for decades, detailing how the Heller decision is a new starting point for the gun control debate as it passionately and energetically continues in the years ahead.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (0)
Brady Campaign endorses Obama-Biden ticket
From their press release:
"The difference between the two tickets is clearest with regard to assault weapons. Senator Obama made his position clear in his acceptance speech in Denver when he said "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." And Senator Biden helped get a ban on assault weapons passed in 1994 and fought for its renewal in 2004.
"Senator McCain, however, opposed the assault weapon ban in 1994 and voted against its renewal in 2004. McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, told ABC's Charles Gibson that she also opposed a ban on assault weapons, saying that they were part of her "culture".
.........
"Along with Sarah and Jim, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters strongly endorses the Obama-Biden ticket and encourages our supporters to vote for them on November 4, 2008."
Thoughts on different sports
The Armed School Teacher's comment on the previous post brings to mind the nature of different sports.
Soccer: Soccer hooligans terrorize European games, tearing down goal posts, assaulting opposing fans, and rioting.
Shooting's equivalent: Two spectators get dirty looks for muttering "Semper Fi" a little too loudly after a Marine takes his shot.
Football: Stars get busted for drugs, assault and battery, etc., etc.. Joke is that a certain team cannot huddle because it would violate their terms of probation, viz., not consorting with convicted felons.
Shooting's equivalent: a Camp Perry winner almost gets a speeding ticket, but since he has no points on his record, the officer gives him a warning. (And if he did have points, he would have admitted it. You just can't lie to an officer).
Tennis: Top ranked player throws a screaming fit when the ref calls his shot out of bounds.
Shooting's equivalent: shooter is eliminated from finals at the Wimbledon, says "I knew I pulled that shot."
Most sports: player is stopped by police after driving down the wrong side of the road, is found drunk as a skunk with a snoot full of cocaine, pleads guilty and is admitted to rehab for the third time.
Shooting's equivalent: a shooter gives up coffee out of concern it might make his hands tremble.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (3)
Todd Jarrett webpage
I didn't know Todd Jarrett, our instructor at Blackwater, had his own webpage, but here it is. He was a superb instructor. Tho from my standpoint, I was like a high school student taking serious college courses; I really needed more experience and training to (1) be able to benefit more and (2) to save him the trouble of remedial ed. I'm a decent bullseye shot and plinker, but had little experience in drawing or shooting on the move. If you had decent skills in that, I'm sure he'd do a lot to move you from decent toward expert. As it was, I learned what I have to improve, and can now work on that, and maybe someday return.
[Update: I only topped him on one trip thru the shoothouse, and he way beat me on time but he shot a good guy. The good guy was a jackass anyway, no big deal.]
Permalink · shooting · Comments (2)
More thought on the Akins Accelerator
Reader Unix Jedi (here's his blog) has this thought:
"As much as I hate to...
ATF's got a damn good case here.
Let me point you to Mike Williamson who detailed why, it changed my mind:
http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/42839.html
http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/43279.html
"This evaluation is valid provided that when the stock is assembled with an otherwise unmodified SKS semiautomatic rifle, the rifle does not discharge more than one shot by a single function of the trigger." (emphasis ATF)"
It occurs to me that the difference may lie in the definition of the undefined "single function of the trigger." Does that mean (a) its literal meaning, that the trigger itself must move once for each shot or (b) that the trigger finger must press the trigger for each shot or (c) the trigger finger MUST MOVE and press the trigger for each shot?
Under (a) and (b) the Akins is not a full auto; with it the trigger cycles once per shot and is pressed by the trigger finger once per shot. Under (c), it is a full auto; the trigger finger moves once and multiple shots are fired.
Permalink · National Firearms Act
Akins Accelerator district court ruling
Pdf of ruling here. As I understand it, the Akins involves letting the action slide in the stock so that the trigger essentially pushes itself against the finger, firing as fast as the device can cycle. ATF initially ruled that an Akins-equipped firearm was not a Title II since the trigger is pulled once for every shot. Then, after Akins began production, ATF reconsidered and ruled that it was a Title II since once the trigger is first pulled, it will continue firing until it runs out of ammo or you consciously "release" the trigger by moving your finger away. The court rules with ATF's last position.
Permalink · National Firearms Act
Inspiring story
The story comes via Instapundit...
Knox County (TN) Commissioner Greg Lambert hears a commotion at the shopping mall, cries that someone had been shot. Two unarmed security guards are trying to respond. Luckily Lambert is a CCW carrier, so when they find the armed suspect he holds him for police. As they arrive, the perp apparently tries again to start firing and they put him down.
The linked articles say the perp killed a store clerk because he was unhappy about a purchase, and was shot and wounded.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Georgia citizen detained for open carry
Another one. GeorgiaCarry.org filed suit and reports on the case. (A bit of background: the plaintiff is enlisted military, and was openly carrying in a store. He was stopped and the firearm confiscated. When he asked for its return, he was told it couldn't be returned, because they had forwarded it to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Within hours of word that he had retained counsel, they were asking him to come down so they could return it to him. Investigation showed it had never been forwarded to GBI.)
Not again, again
I've previously posted about a Norfolk VA fellow who open carries, entirely lawful in VA, was arrested, sued and settled for $10,000....
And a few days later, doing the same on a bus, was detained by Norfolk police.
Well, Virginia Civil Defense League held a dinner rally in his support. And as he was leaving, Norfolk PD arrested him.
I don't lightly play the race card ... but it's hard to escape the suspicion that the fact that he's African-American might be playing a role here.
AHSA: just Brady Campaign in a flannel shirt?
An interesting concept. Sensible Progressive lists the positions of American Hunters & Shooters Assn and Brady Campaign on gun control issues and demonstrates, surprise, that they are identical.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
NRA to make announcement tomorrow
I'd guess it might be a certain endorsement. I'm just glad I don't have to make this schedule -- four cities, from the east coast to Nevada, in a single day. Details in extended entry below.
Continue reading "NRA to make announcement tomorrow"
I know these guys would do anything to win an election...
But misappropriating the National Shooting Sports Foundation emailing list, to send out pro-Obama emailings? Snowflakes in Hell has the story. And here's the NSSF release on it, with links to their cease and desist letter.
UPDATE: I don't know about the Electronic Espionage Act, and don't do intellectual property law, but it sounds like common law trade secrets or copyright fits nicely. (1) They got the list from somewhere. (2) It wasn't from NSSF. This leaves possibilities that either they had someone else buy it for them -- chuckle, a straw man sale -- or someone had bought it earlier and they got it from him. (3) NSSF says that they only rent the list on the condition that the recipient gets a one-time use and only by himself, and cannot assign rights to anyone else.
Article on Nordyke v. King
An article in Reason, dealing with the Methusala of gun cases.
Hat tip to reader Mark Noble...
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (0)
Settlement in New Orleans gun seizures
AP reports the case has settled. It suggests that part of the settlement is a permanent injunction against seizures in similar future situations.
UPDATE: Here's the NRA press release giving more details.
False flag operations enter the election
The antigun false flag American Hunters and Shooters Association is stumping for Obama in Ohio.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
District court rulings post-Heller
The Volokh Conspiracy has discussions of Industrious v. Cauley, and US v. Yanecy, both prohibited person prosecutions.
Industrious strangely cites the Parker Court of Appeals dissent as if it was the rule of Heller -- and botches the dissent at that (seeming to think it means the 2A only applies in DC, when the dissent claimed the 2A didn't apply in DC).
Yancey suggests that we'll see a return of what happened in Lopez: lower courts taking a Supreme Court ruling that they dislike and treating it as incredibly narrow (in that case's aftermath, finding that the ruling only applies to firearms possessed in a school zone, since the ruling mentioned that schools were traditionally a State/local matter, and refusing to extend its limitations on the commerce power to any other setting).
The holding is hardly exceptional: the 2A doesn't forbid laws against possessing guns while using illicit drugs. But the language, "Heller stands only for the proposition that the District of Columbia cannot constitutionally ban handgun possession in the home for use in self-defense by persons not otherwise prohibited from gun possession" is what gives concern.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (8)
Video from Blackwater Gun Blogger Weekend
Here, via Michael Bane's Downrange TV. If you want to see how fast Todd Jarrett can fire on the move, check out the "shooting on the move clip." If you'd like to see the fun in the shoothouse, try "lasers in the shoothouse." Not to say you get a little zoned out during that exercise, but this was the first I knew the videographer was behind me (and he's toting a big professional camera). The jokes about being startled were based on the fact that inside the last door, the "bad guy" target was right in your face, which is why I shot without taking a stance.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (1)
Another 911 call
Video here. The video clip doesn't relate the whole story; apparently she called 911, wound up relayed to wrong police department, got transferred, related her location (although too panicked to give an exact address), fled to the police station and was killed in their parking lot after being kept out by some manner of fence.
The commentators have a point: given that the event lasted 3.5 minutes, with her changing locations, it'd be hard to prove that even if 911 had handled it efficiently, she would have lived. On the other hand, if she'd been able to dial 357...
Hat tip to Don Kates...
NRA expanding ad campaign
Announcement here. The expansion is aimed at six States, I'd guess chosen because they are in play and have high firearms ownership.
Obama, the Joyce Foundation, and the Heller case
I have a Pajamas Media article up exploring the connection between the three.
UPDATE: the comments to the story have several commenters saying that their Dish Network suddenly began defaulting to the Obama Channel. I had someone say that to me this morning, too. Unless the campaign is paying for the privilege, I'd think that's a thing of value (you'd pay good money for it), and thus an illegal corporate campaign contribution.
Continue reading "Obama, the Joyce Foundation, and the Heller case"
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
ACLU suit against ATF?
Joe Huffman reports on it. A lady was driving around on April 19, 2006 (the anniversary of the Waco fire) with "remember the children of Waco" written on her windows, and got pulled over and questioned. At least from the description, it sounds like local police, rather than ATF, stopped her.
Ah, here's more. But not much more, and the link to the judge's order is inoperative.
UPDATE: comments have a good link to the judge's order. It appears that ATF asked local police to make the stop. One question to me is how the communication with the local ATF would have turned up that she had a CCW permit.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (5)
Amusing historical find
While researching the 14th Amendment, I found in the Chicago Tribune a report of same-sex marriage ... in 1866!
"Women's Rights -- A Woman with a Wife
[From the New Bedford Mercury, 4th]
About a year ago, a daughter of Major Daniel Perry, who was somewhat deranged, disappeared, and wandering off, was at last lodged in the Sullivan County, New York, alms house as a vagrant. Here she met another monomaniac, by the name of Lucy Slater and the two, becoming very much attached to each other, decided to become man and wife. THey left the alms house last summer, and returned to Abington, where they have lived in the bonds of wedlock, as supposed by the neighbors -- Lucy, alias James Salter, wearing male attire up to the present time."
Of course in 1866, with no picture ID, no social security number, it was easy to take an alias. Read somewhere that 300 women served in the Union Army. Everyone kept their uniform on (the hotter and muggier it was, the more necessary to avoid your pores absorbing malaria, it was thought), the medical exam was rudimentary (mostly focusing on teeth, to tear open a cartridge, and beyond that just observation of whether the recruit was visibly disabled), and with puberty coming later (and so many underage fellows enlisting), a recruit who didn't shave didn't stand out. A band wrapped around the chest would flatten out her breasts, and so long as a woman's face could pass for that of a male, all she needed was a haircut and an alias.
UPDATE: yep, what usually gave the game away was a hospital admission. One in the 2nd Michigan, Sarah Seelye I think she spelled her real name, got sick and hospitalized and they figured it out. Someone told me that another was discovered by Clara Barton herself. Soldier was brought in WIA, she opened the shirt, and found cloth wound tightly around the chest... hmmmm.....
Clinging to guns and religion
A Jewish Manhattan resident clings to his guns and his religion.
Another dumb crook report
Arrested for burglary, posts bond, is released and is immediately caught in the jail parking lot, going thru cars.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (0)
Navy finds lost sub
Story here. It's the Grunion, last heard from in 1942, and found off the Aleutians.
I have a foggy memory that one of her officers (who wasn't on her last tour) wrote a book about the ship.
Roundup of Nordyke briefs
Gene Hoffman has the collection, in pdf.
UPDATE: he also has the State's (i.e., King's) brief, here. So far as I know there were no amici supporting the State.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (5)
"dangerous and unusual weapons"
Prof. O'Shea's comment to a prior post led me to wonder: just what were the "dangerous and unusual weapons" that common law viewed as outside the right to arms? Everybody had muskets, pistols, knives, and before that bows and pole arms. For much of the period, no gentleman would go out without his sword. Blunderbusses, the equivalent of a sawed-off shotgun, were pretty common. Apparently private artillery was commonly privately owned (in the Heller briefing, an 18th century Boston requirement that guns, mortars and cannon be unloaded if stored indoors came up). Tom Jefferson had a pocket pistol specifically designed for concealed carry.
The only thing I can readily think of is the Infernal Machine, a generic term for various large assassination tools (i.e., wine kegs filled with gunpowder and surrounded with metal straps for fragmentation, or in one case, a huge 20-barreled gun), but even these were late in the period. (The bomb directed at Napoleon was what I remembered; he was saved by a drunken coachman who made the wrong turn, and didn't even awaken when the bomb detonated. He did have a reputation of being a sound sleeper, but that was a bit much).
Apart from that, I suspect the concept was "someday somebody may invent a dangerous and unusual weapon, and we could do something about it if they ever do."
Study finds no link between gun shows and gun deaths
For me, a man bites dog story. But a rebuttal to those who contend that criminals flock to gun shows to get firearms.
Bank bailout bill
The 451 page monstrosity is online.
Good grief. The bailout ends around page 297. The next 150 pages is comprised of benefits to one or another region or group, either to round up congressional votes or just slipped in. It included changes to the Internal Revenue Code, benefits for film production, disaster relief to the Midwest, changes in how Forest Service does business, exemption of wooden arrows for kids from (I assume Pittman-Robinson) taxes, etc., etc. You can tell how hastily it was drafted by the fact that many parts refer to amending or deleting "section ___" without saying section of what statute.
From what I'm told, Congress has yet to pass a single appropriations bill this entire session, and just had to pass a continuing resolution covering the entire government. It's a reminder that the federal government was originally set up as a tiny operation (the Sec. of State originally reviewed and signed patents in person; there wasn't even a Department of the Interior until 1849). That mechanism is now trying to run a, what, three million employee operation.
Jury deadlock in case involving NFA records
Posting here. The defense challenged the government's NFA records, brought in a top-notch statistical expert who testified they were not something you could use as anything but an investigatory lead. The jury deadlocked 7-5 (no word on who had the seven and who the five). Odds are that it's effectively an acquittal. Even if it was 7-5 for the prosecution, if you're losing five votes, what are the odds of turning that into 12-0 at a second trial?
Permalink · National Firearms Act · Comments (1)
Amicus briefs filed in Nordyke
Here's amicus of Prof. Aynes, Curtis, Lawrence and Van Alstyne. Prof. Curtis is one of the biggest names in 14th Amendment scholarship, and Van Alstyne is one of the biggest names in constitutional law, period.
Here's the amicus for NRA and CalGuns.
Both are quite good, and filed a little early (deadline is tomorrow).
I posted on the exceptionally long-lived Nordyke case a while ago. Filed in 1999, yet stayed around long enough to take advantage of Heller.
Hat tip to reader ambiguous ambiguae...
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (2)
New group supporting knife rights
Webpage is here. I talked with Doug Ritter, the chairman, at the Gun Rights Policy Conference. It was interesting to go into the restrictions on knifes -- bars to this or that type, States that bar unlicensed CCW and have licenses only for carrying a concealed firearm, but not any other form of weapon, etc..
A knifesmith friend told me that "butterfly" knives were frequently banned, because they seemed exotic and foreign. He thought the design, if made well, was extremely sound and safe. The claim was sometimes made that they could be opened quickly with one hand (associating them with switchblades) but the fact was that most modern pocketknives can be opened that way, with no practice, whereas doing it with a butterfly is complicated and requires much practice. He saw the ban on butterfly knives as the knife "assault gun ban."