« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 »
June 2010
Gura's already on the move
Here's a discussion of his next case, filed the day McDonald came down. I suspect it's just one of his next series of cases. New York are Massachusetts are out there, with big targets pasted on them.
Cardozo Law Rev. symposium on Heller & McDonald
It's here. Articles by some of us usual suspects.
Bob Cottrol on McDonald
at SCOTUSBlog. Very much to the point. A sample:
The opinions in McDonald are rich in ironies. We have conservative justices authoring opinions which squarely confront the tragic legacy of race and its impact on American Constitutional history, while we have liberal justices wanting to largely skip over that history. We have on the other hand liberal justices pleading for states’ rights and federalism while conservative justices make the case for the soundness of incorporating the Bill of Rights as a matter of original intent. The Court got it right in McDonald but how it came to do so will fascinate students and commentators for some time to come.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (3)
Photos from the Supreme Court yesterday
Right here.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (4)
Comments
I had to block .gmail and aol.com after huge waves of comment spam came, giving those as a return address. (The latest wave, yesterday, fired off 60 spam comments in a matter of a few minutes, before I blocked aol; no idea how many it would have posted if I hadn't done that).
You don't need to list an email in order to post, so if you use those, just omit the email, or make one up (the blog can't check).
Chicago
Opinion here. 240 pages if you count the concurrences and the dissents. A wonderful day! Everyone gets something. Alan Gura gets Thomas' concurrence, and the fifth vote. Steve Halbrook gets cited a zillion times (as I've said before, if you could copyright an argument, the Supreme Court would have had to negotiate royalties with him). I get cited by majority and the concurrence. Professors Wyldenthal, Curtis and Aynes get cited. The Women State Legislors' brief, by Sarah Gervase, Carol Bambery and Linsday Charles, gets cited, too. UPDATE: not to mention Bob Cottrol, Ray Diamond, and Clayton Cramer, who get cited by the majority, the Thomas concurrence, or both.
The majority decisively rejects Stevens' argument for "incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States." Scalia's concurrence stomps all over Stevens' dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (14)
Chicago-- WE WIN
opinion here here.
ABA Warning
The ABA (of which I am a proud non-member) reminds us that a JD and partnership in a major firm give no protection against being fleeced by really dumb internet scams. The comments are interesting, too.
VPC's latest study is debunked
VPC claims that loose gun laws, and in particular "right to carry," is associated with higher crime rates. Howard Nemerov takes them on, showing how they discarded much of the data, and the full dataset cuts the other way.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (3)
Waiting for Chicago
Supreme Court handed down a load of opinions today (I lost count, 5-6-7?). Last opinions will be handed down on Monday. Ginsburg got the Skilling decision today, meaning that for the sitting when McDonald was argued, only that case remains, and only Justice Alito has not written an opinion. Of course, "everyone gets at least one opinion per sitting, if possible" is custom, not binding rule, and qualified by "if possible." Josh Blackman thus bets on CJ Roberts keeping the case for himself, with Alito getting some other especially interesting case.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (7)
Genocide, guns, and Hollywood
Dan Gifford raises some serious points at the screening of a documentary on genocide.
Permalink · arms vs. genocide · Comments (3)
James Madison's notes on his study of law
An interesting article. (Download it by clicking on "pdf" or "html" in upper right margin). It's of interest mainly in a historical sense -- no great insights into Madison's constitutional thoughts.
Incompetent local crook
From this morning's paper: John Catania plead out to armed robbery, agg assault and kidnapping. He faces 10 to 70 years when sentenced.
He was apprehended after a pizza place reported being robbed. As the robber reached for the money, he put the gun in his waistband, and it fired, shooting him in the leg. Catania limped home and had his girlfriend call 911; when questioned he claimed he'd been shot by two guys for no known reason. I guess he thought police would not put two and two together....
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (0)
Countdown to Chicago
The custom is that each Justice gets at least one opinion from each two-week "sitting" on arguments. Coming into today's opinion releases, there were three opinions left from the sitting in which the Chicago case was argued, and three Justices who hadn't written an opinion from it. Today's four opinions included one by CJ Roberts, taking him out of the running. We have two Justices left -- Alito and Ginsburg -- and two opinions left, Chicago and Skilling v. US. The Court is scheduled to release more opinions on Thursday and Monday, a week from today.
UPDATE I'm not in on any plans, and couldn't talk about it if I were, but I'd be near certain that plans were made long ago for the next round(s) of suits, and that Alan Gura, far from being done, is about to become a very busy fellow indeed. The only question in my mind is -- how many sets of pleadings are out there, ready for filing?
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (29)
open carriers given flak in MI
Apparently, the Ass't Chief of Police of Marysville (MI) hasn't heard that open carry is legal in his State.
Hat tip to Justin Martin of GeorgiaCarry.org.
Funny read, from the Chi Tribune
It asks what gun laws Chicago should adopt if its ban is stricken. The "model gun laws" listed are worth a good laugh.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (5)
DISCLOSE bill and NRA
A few months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on corporations airing campaign ads (or anything mentioning a candidate's name, including an ad that suggests asking him to do something). The powers that be started pushing a bill, DISCLOSE, which would make these now-lawful ad expenditures a bit more burdensome.
The House leadership tried to smooth its passage with a provision that exempts NRA and a few other large advocacy groups (requirements include having more than a million dues-paying members, and no more than a small percent of income from corporate entities). NRA indicated it would have no dog in the fight if the bill did not cover it. This predictably led to some accusations of "selling out."
Personally -- in a chess game this complicated, Murphy's Law and the rule of unintended consequences begin to play major roles, and any tactic that complicates the opposition's situation makes both more prominent and is thus a good move. So far--
1) Public Interest Research Group, National Right to Life Committee and Sierra Club oppose the bill -- I assume because they are subject to it and NRA would not be.
2) Brady Campaign is angry as well: "he special treatment for the NRA "is exactly why Americans are so turned off by politics and cynical about Congress," Paul Helmke said in a telephone interview. "It makes no sense at all when you say you're concerned about the role that money plays in politics.""
3) The new opposition has "left the fate of the legislation in doubt. "
4) If it survives, and is challenged in court, the situation is likewise complicated. "Counsel -- you say this statute serves a compelling governmental interest, in mandating disclosure of corporate involvement in politics -- yet it exempts the biggest corporations from its scope. So involvement of corporations is suspicious, but involvement of really big corporations is not?"
UPDATE: here's Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan on it: "It’s now clear that the Democratic leadership in Congress has turned the reins of power over to the National Rifle Association." "a stunning act of craven appeasement," " legislative hostage-taking," "It is gratifying to see the growing list of progressive groups that have joined the opposition to this cynical Democratic House sell-out. " I think he's a little upset.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (8)
Attorney shoots self in foot in court
Literally. Incidents like this make me feel less old-fashioned: I won't have a gun without a manual safety, and it stays on unless readying to fire. I know ... I was trained by my father, and he was trained to WWII standards with a 1911, so I'm half a century out of date.
"F" rated Congressman assaults interviewer
Rep. Bob Etheridge. N.C., gets gets caught on camera. Some viewers think he was plastered, and if so, he must have been starting early. David Codrea reports he is rated F by NRA and GoA.
More reading of tea leaves
As I noted during the last such exercise, the Supreme Court considers each two-week session of oral arguments a “sitting,” and the custom is that each Justice (if at all possible) gets to write at least one opinion from each sitting.
McDonald was heard during the sitting of February 22. That sitting had 13 cases, one of which was dismissed after it settled. As of today, from that sitting, Sotomayor, Kennedy and Breyer have written two opinions apiece, and Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas have written one.
That leaves three opinions to be written, and three Justices to write them: CJ Roberts, Ginsberg, and Alito. Hmm... first incorporation case in thirty years or so, perhaps most interesting case of the Term, likely to wind up in all the Con Law casebooks ... I suspect CJ Roberts may keep this one for himself.
Other than McDonald, the two remaining cases from that sitting are Skilling v. US, (prosecution for “theft of honest services” – interpretation, void for vagueness, and prejudicial publicity issues) and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (1st Amendment challenge to statute forbidding providing service, training or assistance to organizations listed as foreign terrorist groups).
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (4)
Self defender downs cop-killer
This posting points to a memorable 1999 event which doesn't seem to have attracted much media interest (it happened in Phoenix, and don't remember hearing of it before this).
Phoenix PD officer Marc Atkinson was tailing a stolen vehicle and waiting for backup when he went around a corner and found its three occupants waiting in ambush; he had no chance, and they killed him.
A fellow named Rory Vertigan was in a car right behind the officer. He drew his Glock and emptied the magazine, wounding one killer and disabling their car. He then tackled the wounded killer as he tried to flee. Police quickly nabbed all three.
Culpepper Co. VA ends investigation of self-defender
Actually, I don't know that the Sheriff of Culpepper did investigate the fellow, after he held a burglar at gunpoint, but I suspect there must have been some inquiry before the sheriff issued him a letter of commendation.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Brady Campaign selling its mailing lists
Joe Huffman makes an interesting discovery on the web: Brady Campaign is selling its mailing list. And it's only got 50,000 names (only 28,000 of whom have donated or otherwise responded in the last year, if I read it correctly), rather than the 500,000 to which Brady has laid claim.
Icing on the cake: Kurt Hoffman points out that on its webpage, Brady Campaign promised donors and activists that "the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center will not sell your name or e-mail address to spammers or share it with unaffiliated groups."
UPDATE: the same seller has a progun email list for sale, source(s) unspecified. It's 250% the size of Brady's, has a higher percentage of people who have donated in the last year, and the price (per M = per 1,000 names) is appreciably steeper.
Hat tip to reader J. R. Whitelock...
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (5)
Lott on gun laws and mass murders
John Lott's latest is at National Review Online.
"Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns."
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred...
Permalink · non-US · Comments (2)
GREAT video, watch it while you can
I had a previous post about Brady Campaign giving Helen Thomas its award for vision, and a commenter noted that Brady has pulled that page. But they forgot to take down this embarassing clip, where Paul Helmcke reads a long stream of letters from big names, kissing up to her, followed by Sarah Brady brown-nosing her at length."Finest journalist of our generation," " a great honor to meet," etc., followed by the Brady diners' applause.
There is other footage up, but in that you have actually to see her speak, and keep wondering when she's going to break into "I'll get you, and your little dog, too!!"
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (4)
Shooting is a dignified sport
The points are counted, and if you didn't qualify, you case your guns, pack your range bag, and join the spectators. In other sports, it's not so dignified.
We had a joke going around, regarding what would be the Camp Perry equivalent of Europe's soccer holliganism. We figured it would be something like: a couple of Marines whisper "semper fi" too loudly after a Marine competitor makes a good shot, and cease after other spectators give them looks of disapproval.
For the third time, a Chicagoan blasts a robber with an unregistered gun
This time, a pawnbroker kills an armed robber, who'd been convicted of robbery before but apparently paroled after boot camp. [I always thought that was a singularly foolish idea. The reasoning seems to be (1) the military teaches self-discipline and duty, (2) the military starts with physical workouts and being yelled at, therefore (3) if you have someone yell at a criminal while he works out, he will become self-disciplined and law abiding. This does not follow]. (h/t to reader Alice Beard)
The Chicago Tribune seems disappointed that no one is prosecuting the City's self-defenders:
Even as Mayor Richard Daley rails against the gun ban's critics, the Police Department doesn't seem up to vigorous enforcement of the law. In two recent instances, homeowners have shot intruders with handguns that apparently fall under the ban. But so far, the city has not filed charges against the shooters.If the law is worth having, it has to be applied even against sympathetic violators. If Chicago's not willing to enforce the law, it won't make a substantial difference if the Supreme Court says Chicago can no longer have it.
(Perhaps someone should inform the Trib about the Illinois law giving an affirmative defense to gun charges, based on discovery of the gun after a self defense incident)
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (5)
Brady Campaign and Helen Thomas
Posted by David Hardy · 8 June 2010 08:21 AMDisplaying a perfect sense of timing, Brady Campaign recently proclaimed Helen Thomas a "visionary."
What's the line from The Princess Bride? "I don't tink dat word means what you tink it means, boss," something like that.
Hat tip to Sixgun Sarah...
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (9)
Virtues of Texas
Posted by David Hardy · 7 June 2010 10:44 PMOne reason why, if I were not an Arizonan, I'd like to be a Texan.
Elana Kagan's sole footprint on the Second Amendent
Posted by David Hardy · 6 June 2010 08:05 PMActually, more like a toeprint, and a light one at that. Back in 1987, when the individual rights view consisted of oh, Steve Halbrook, Joyce Malcolm, Don Kates, Bob Dowlut and myself, publishing in sundry reviews with no court taking note, a fellow named Sandidge got convicted under DC's ban and appealed. The question was whether the Court should take the case. Her memo to Justice Marshall gives that all of three words: "I'm not sympathetic."
Hard to tell even if the guy's petition emphasized that (while he was busted for an unregistered gun) the law forbade registration.
Peter Hitchens' thoughts on the British shooter
Posted by David Hardy · 6 June 2010 06:05 PMRight here.
"The truth s that until 1920, Britain’s gun laws were so relaxed they made Texas look effeminate, but we had virtually no gun crime. That only really began to increase here after we abolished hanging.
But that truth doesn’t fit the Leftist dogma which has everyone, including the Tories, the media and the police, in its grip, so the facts will be ignored.What can we learn from the Cumberland murders? Well, first of all that the police are no use to anyone once a crime has been committed. They never were and they never will be, except if they can do first aid."
Of course, here's a more typical response: "Evil Lurks In All of Us". Not really. What you're usually looking at in this situation is a violent and extreme narcissist. The combination of enormous ego and inner self-hate explains multiple murders for no reason (playing God, as it were) with suicide at the end.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
US reverses stance on small arms treaty
Posted by David Hardy · 6 June 2010 05:38 PMStory here. The US did say that any vote must be by consensus, to which treaty proponents are objecting.
UPDATE: Prob is old news. I've just fought off one hell of an infection, am not too clear at noticing things in this exhausted state.
Permalink · non-gun weapons · Comments (2)
Former Justice Souter speaks
Posted by David Hardy · 4 June 2010 07:47 PMStory here.
I can understand that he doesn't seem to like textualism -- stick to the words, that's what was agreed upon -- nor original understanding -- words explained by our best understanding of what they were meant to be. But what he does propose as an interpretative tool is beyond my grasp. Each rephrasing seems to amount to "something else."
"a defense of the need for judges to go beyond the plain text — what he called the “fair-reading model” — and make choices among the competing values embedded in the Constitution. "
I can't see many areas where this is true, unless Article I's grant of power to Congress is seen as in conflict with the Bill of Rights ... but then the Bill of Rights reflects Americans' choice to withhold those powers from Congress, so it really is not in conflict. There's no indication to me that Americans meant for judges to consider "Congress shall make no law" as something for judges to weigh against Article I.
'The “notion that all of constitutional law lies there in the Constitution waiting for a judge to read it fairly” is not only “simplistic,” he said; it “diminishes us” by failing to acknowledge that the Constitution is not just a set of aphorisms for the country to live by but a “pantheon of values” inevitably in tension with one another."
Same problem.
"A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague, but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways."
Not really. Americans destroyed the Federalist Party because it failed to respect the First Amendment. They were pretty clear which way they wanted to have it, to the point where they destroyed the dominant political party of the time.
"The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice."
So between Bill of Rights liberties and, dare I say it, the unenumerated powers of the government, the Court must arbitrate (and in the current day). Heck, and I'd always thought the Bill of Rights had "the better claim," in any age.
He discussed Plessey v. Ferguson, upholding segregation, and Brown v. Board, striking it down, as "the meaning to the justices of the fact of segregation had changed. “The meaning of facts arises elsewhere and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own."
Doesn't that mean he accepts that Plessey was right when it was decided, "right here, right now," and became wrong half a century later? I'd rather prefer to think it was wrong and odious from the beginning, for reasons entirely external to the judges.... it just took them half a century to see the light.
Above all else -- beyond "not originalism," where does he say what his method is? It seems to be that everything is balancing, the people foolishly want everything, and we must, out of our greater wisdom, decide what is in their best interest. If what we want coincides with what the Framers wanted... well, that's OK, too.
Permalink · General con law · Comments (6)
Candidate for AZ governor
Posted by David Hardy · 4 June 2010 01:28 PMI met Buz Mills at the annual NRA meeting. It's not often you see a serious gubernatorial candidate who owns Gunsite Academy -- I don't suppose that leaves much room for doubt on his Second Amendment views.
What reminded me of this was word that he's filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case involving Arizona's publicly-funded elections statutes. Those allow a person to run in the usual way, with donations, or to opt for public funding (sorry to say no politician ever offered to fund my job searches), but also has a provision that if someone funds his or her own election, a matching amount of public money will go to their opponent. Mills is pointing out that his opponents are drawing millions of public money for their campaigns, while they just had a referendum to increase the sales tax because otherwise the State would allegedly go insolvent.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (0)
Correction of opinion count for Feb. 22 Sitting
Posted by David Hardy · 3 June 2010 05:02 PMDouble checking my count, I found I missed one that was written by Justice Breyer. That makes the count 7 decided out of 13.
Writing two opinion apiece from that sitting: Kennedy, Sotomayer.
Writing one each: Stevens, Scalia, Breyer.
Not having released one yet: Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Roberts
[above updated in light of comment].
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (9)
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Posted by David Hardy · 3 June 2010 01:35 PMFor the second time in a week, a Chicagoan uses a banned handgun to shoot a home invader.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (3)
History Channel's "Top Shot"
Posted by David Hardy · 2 June 2010 11:51 AMIt premieres this Sunday evening: here's its webpage.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (1)
Reading tea leaves....
Posted by David Hardy · 2 June 2010 08:59 AMThe Supreme Court divides up arguments into "sittings," each of them two weeks long. McDonald v. Chicago was argued during the sitting of Feb 22. The Court's custom is to make sure each Justice writes at least one opinion from each sitting.
The Feb. 22 sitting had 13 arguments, so four Justices will write two and the other five one.
From that sitting, two Justices (Kennedy and Sotomayor) have already written two opinions, so they're not in the running. Stevens and Scalia have each written one. There are seven cases left to be decided.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (11)
DoJ readiness for weapons of mass destruction attack
Posted by David Hardy · 2 June 2010 08:48 AMJustice's inspector general suggests that FBI has a plan, but all the other agencies in Justice do not.
Brady Campaign hunkers down on the Chicago case
Posted by David Hardy · 1 June 2010 07:21 PMDennis Henigan pretty much accepts a loss, and looks for a silver lining in that cloud. Good try. It cuts both ways.... how many Brady supporters will keep contributing when gun bans are ruled out, and all Brady has to hope for is, oh, permit systems and things like that -- and if the right to arms is accepted as fundamental, they'd probably have to be liberal permit schemes. I suspect the New York law will be a good next target ("may issue" and $400 or whatever application fees are charged, for exercise of a fundamental constitutional right?)