« June 2010 | Main | August 2010 »
July 2010
Chicagoans reaction to the decision
Check out the comments at a Chicago LEO's blog.
Thoughts on bureaucracy, ordinary, LE, and military
Some thoughts, from an editorial in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Building a Williams Gun
The story is here. The Williams Gun was a Confederate creation. It was a rapid firing, carriage mounted, rifled gun of 1.5" bore. Its projectiles were gigantic Minie type ones, cast in lead, and explosive ones were made with a cavity for black powder and a nipple for percussion cap on the nose. (Safety was not a big concern in Civil War artillery). Its main purpose was long-range sniping at artillery limbers and caissons -- the explosive rounds would have done a good job of detonating those.
I found a record of one scoring a hit, in the surgical volume of the Official Records of the War of Rebellion. A sketch depicted a projectile that hit an officer's horse at the Seven Day's Battle -- it was a Minie type, 1.5" diameter, with a big cavity in the nose. The authors speculated that it might have come from a gigantic sniping rifle of unknown type. My guess is that the gun was being used for sniping at people, and so the crew omitted the explosive charge.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (0)
If you're in Washington State
I wouldn't know anything of Washington judges, but I rec'd an email from Alan Gottlieb endorsing Richard Sanders. His webpage is here. Alan notes that Sanders voted, prior to Chicago, in favor of the 2A being incorporated. Alan writes:
"Sanders wrote, "Gun ownership is an inexorable birthright of American tradition. Americans who participated in the Revolution of 1776 and adopted the Bill of Rights held the individual right to have and use arms against tyranny to be fundamental. State v. Sieyes, 225 P.3d 995 (2010)
Our gun rights are fundamental! I couldn't have said it better myself!
Of course this isn't the only opinion from Justice Sanders on gun rights. In a closely divided court he fiercely dissented from a terrible majority opinion in Pacific NW Shooting Park v. Sequim 158 Wn.2d 342 (2006) that allowed the sheriff to shut down a gun show in clear violation of state statute.
And in State v. Carter 151 Wn.2d 118 (2004) he demanded in dissent that police have a search warrant before disassembling a weapon. And there are many, many more opinions from this exceptional jurist protecting our gun rights."
SAF, Alan Gura, sue over Maryland carry permit denial
Story here. Again, a careful choice of plaintiff, facts, and law. Plaintiff had a permit to carry after his house was broken into; then renewal was denied for lack of demonstrated cause, even though the perp is now out of prison and living a few miles away.
And to think -- it was only a few years ago that Brady and others were suing gun manufacturers right and left, as part of a campaign to bankrupt the industry, a campaign that had a good chance of succeeding. Today, they're on the defensive (to the extent they act at all) and the progun side is on the offense. Since almost all of it has occurred over the last month or so, it's more than an offense, it's a legal blitzkrieg.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (7)
Lott takes apart antis' claims about CCW permittees
Article here. As always he does a serious job of refutation, find their figures (tiny though they are) include a large proportion of self-defense shooting, and even suicides, which don't have a lot to do with CCW permits.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (0)
New AZ law in effect
As of today, Arizona's ban on CCW without a permit has expired. Not that it makes much difference to us 1911 lovers. Sorta hard to conceal one -- in AZ, it wasn't concealed if any part of the firearm was visible.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (3)
CalGuns, others, sue against Calif. ammunition law
Complaint here, in pdf. The new California statute requires handgun ammunition to be sold face-to-face, with ID from the purchaser, and delivered at his address to himself and no one else.
Plaintiffs challenge this as violating the Federal Aviation Admin. Authorization Act of 1994, which pre-empted State regulation of interstate carriers' prices, routes, and services. The Federal standards do not require packages of ammunition to be marked as such, let alone impose the California requirements. Plaintiffs argue that the California statute would require carriers to determine which packages contain ammunition, and to deliver in accord with its terms -- determine if the recipient is exempt, and if not, deliver only to him and record his ID.
Interview with plaintiffs in Westchester County case
Interesting interviews over at Only Guns and Money.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (0)
90 days incarceration
They don't tolerate arachnid rustling in Carroll County, MD.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (0)
I think we need a new organization
Perhaps call it Sheriffs for Civil Liberties. Add to this fellow Sheriff Printz, of the NRA Board, Sheriff Mack, my former client, and I'm sure we could round up quite a few more.
Demos becoming more pro 2A
Story here. And I'm glad to see it cataloged under "Civil Liberties."
Handgun ownership in Chicago
Daley's attempt to make registration onerous, rather than impossible, isn't succeeding very well.
hat tip to sixgun sarah....
UPDATE: I verified the url, using the very link that was emailed to me -- and suddenly it doesn't work. On a second try, five minutes later, it did. No idea why.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (4)
Online discussion of 14th Amendment and Chicago
Online video here at 7 PM Pacific, 10 PM Eastern, tonight. Speaking will be Steve Halbrook (who was bringing out books on the 14th Amendment and the right to arms 20+ years before Chicago, and got I think six citations in that opinion) and Don Kilmer, attorney in the Nordyke case, where the 9th Circuit panel ruled in favor of incorporation before Chicago came down.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (1)
Richmond Times-Dispatch covers the Thomas concurrence
It's not often one sees a newspaper article that reproduces large portions of a Supreme Court opinion. It's a far cut above the usual "the decision will have these policy effects," or "these people cheered it and those people don't like it." To actually report a decision, and edit it down to suitable size, requires too much work.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (2)
A commentary on McDonald v. Chicago
Right here.
"I purchased a gun several years ago, when I became concerned for the safety of my young family after receiving a verbal racial assault in our 21st century Northern California neighborhood. Perhaps I am the only Stanford Law professor who owns guns, including the one that once graced my father’s lap on that porch forty years ago. As an American, I am grateful for that gun. I am also grateful for the four black men who have made it possible for my sons to sleep at night, secure in the knowledge that I, and it, will do what is necessary to protect them."
Hat tip to reader Alice Beard...
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (3)
Update in Nordyke
Yesterday the 9th Circuit panel issued an order:
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing:
(1) the impact of McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 2010 WL
2555188 (U.S. June 28, 2010), on the disposition of this case; and
(2) any other issue properly before this court, including the level of scrutiny
that should be applied to the ordinance in question.
Such briefs shall be no longer than fifteen (15) pages each and shall be filed
simultaneously no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Any amicus curiae brief addressing the issues identified above shall be no
longer than fifteen (15) pages, shall be filed simultaneously with the parties’
supplemental briefs, and shall otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29.
. . . . .
The time and location of oral argument, if any, will be set by separate order
of the court.
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Permalink · Nordyke v. King · Comments (3)
Update on Bellesiles' recent affair
The Chronicle of Higher Ed has added an editor's note to the end of the article. Their investigation led to the conclusion that the student whose brother had supposedly been killed in Iraq made the story up, and fed it to Bellesiles.
Hat tip to reader Jim D. ...
Target: New York
Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have challenged New York's "good cause" requirement for a carry license. As usual, good targeting. It moves from "keep" to "carry," and aims at a system that requires exercise of a constitutional right to be authorized by permit, on the vague basis of "good cause." Which in this case the licensing authority translates into "good cause that is in some way exceptional, when compared to the good cause that is true of the population in general," or "extraordinarily good cause."
Hat tip to reader Nick L. ...
UPDATE: Only Guns and Money notes that one plaintiff earlier challenged the system in NY State courts, got to its highest court, which dismissed the case on its own motion for lack of a substantial constitutional question. The dissenting judge pointed out that the Supreme Court had already accepted McDonald v. Chicago, suggesting there might just be a substantial constitutional question here...
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (20)
LCAV dinner tonight in San Francisco
Legal Community Against Violence, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Joyce Foundation, is having a fancy dinner tonight, and CalGuns is planning some mischief. Read about 2/3 of the way down to see the plans beginning.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (11)
Political donations
US News: progun groups donate 116 times as much to candidates as do antigun groups.
Permalink · Politics · Comments (7)
More on Bellesiles' latest
James Lindgren reports on his more extensive investigation. He submits that Chronicles of Higher Education, which published B's article, at this point must ask him for proof, because every indicator is that his article is fiction.
Update: last night Chronicles informed Prof. Lindgren that it is doing just that.
Another Chicago suit
Complaint here, and here's the take at No Lawyers, Just Guns and Money.
Claims include an FFL's argument that the continuing ban on sale of handguns is unconstitutional, attacks on one gun a month and other provisions of the replacement ordinance, a class action for compensation for owners of guns confiscated under the invalidated ordinance, and some others. Tastes differ, but I think it could use a narrower focus.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (3)
Development in Nordyke v. King
Nordyke is the incredibly long-lived challenge to a California ban on gun shows at a county facility. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel had ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the States via the 14th, but that the ban was limited and constitutional. Then the Circuit voted, as a whole, for en banc review (meaning in most circuits, that the entire group of judges votes on it, but in the oversized 9th Circuit, it means the chief judge and ten others chosen at random, do so).
Today, the en banc panel voted to remand the case to the three judge panel for a ruling in light of McDonald. I've never seen this done before.
Hat tip to reader Gene Hoffman of CalGuns.
UPDATE: the only reading I can see is that the panel ruling, while upholding the law, fired up some anti-RKBA judges who weren't on the panel -- and enough of them to win a vote on rehearing en banc, where they could have a shot at reversing the panel. Now with McDonald, they know they have no chance at changing things, and have given up.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath · Comments (12)
Federal judge rips sheriff over permit denial
Story here. "U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution within five months."
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (4)
Thought for the day
In Heller, the dissent took the view that the Second Amendment was adopted in order to ensure that Americans could participate in State-mustered forces that could resist the Federal government with armed force.
Combined with McDonald.... the "liberal" wing embraces Jefferson Davis, the "conservative" wing embraces John Bingham.
Perhaps we could suggest that in the future, the dissenters refer to 1861-65 as The War of Northern Aggression and the majority refer to it as The War of the Rebellion.
Bellesiles writes again ... and gets pounded again
He publishes a story in the Chronicles of Higher Education about a student of his in Central Connecticut State University, whose brother enlisted in the Army, served in Iraq and was fatally shot in the head. He was too badly injured to be evacuated from Iraq, and he died weeks later. The event is described as occurring "this semester," and the student as being in his military history class.
Uh ... the problems with the story are outlined by Dutton Peabody and by James Lindgren.
The only Connecticut fatality in 2010 was a Marine. He died of an IED blast. In April. A person with brain injuries who cannot be evacuated, yet takes weeks to die seems a bit questionable, as well. And there seems little indication that Bellesiles taught military history at that university.
It's puzzling why Chronicles of Higher Ed wouldn't have done at least a little verification of the story. Of course they may have figured the author won the Bancroft Prize.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (17)
Suit over new Chicago restrictions
NRA Press release here.
Update: NRA appears to be supporting the suit, brought by the Illinois Assn of Firearms Retailers, the State affiliate of National Shooting Sports Foundation. Press release here.
Pro-arms article ... at Daily Kos?
Right here. The comments (1,400+ of them) are equally interesting.
Hat tip to reader Matthew Carmel...
This settles one thing
I have long felt that Second Amendment legal thinking is guided, not by any "liberal vs. conservative" division, but by "comfortable around guns vs. guns are foreign, strange, and dangerous: division. I have a number of friends and 2A advocates -- the crowning case being Mark Benenson, former president of Amnesty International's US branch -- who could be described as "liberal" by any conceivable standard.
One short segment of the "liberal" wing's dissent in McDonald v. Chicago confirms this. The dissent argues that applying the right to arms to States will make for a lot of judicial workload (as if recognizing that the First Amendment protects pornography but not obscenity did not), asks whether the right covers "Semi-automatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic?"
[I doubt that the dissent had in mind Webley's 1895 patent on a semiautomatic revolver, of which under 5,000 were manufactured.
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (4)
Reaction to McDonald v. Chicago
In the wake of the decision, the Jackson County (WI) prosecutor has announced he's no longer taking CCW and similar gun cases.
"Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state’s interests first, and
would only create an exception to these laws when the individual’s need for protection
outweighed the state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have
approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant’s personallyowned
place of business. Well, as the United States Supreme Court held yesterday, that
view was exactly backward.
As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, of religion, of
association, or of security in our homes, persons, and effects, government limitations on
fundamental rights are lawful only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling
governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored
restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket prohibition against
carrying your loaded firearm in your personal vehicle does not pass that test."
Hat tip to reader Dave Van...
Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (4)
Dave Kopel's testimony on the Kagan nomination
Video on Youtube, here.
The Empire Strikes Back
Mayor Daley proposes to replace the handgun ban with onerous regulation. Well, that's one reason for the attorneys' fees provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1988. If he wants to play, he has to pay.
Hat tip to reader Nick Lidakis....