« October 2012 | Main | December 2012 »
November 2012
Looking back on a bit of history
Back at the foundation of NRA-ILA, the leadership thought the argument that there was a constitutional right to arms could not be a winner: yes, WE believe that, but no one else does. (Not a surprising view, if the only way to judge public opinion was through the mass media, and remember we're talking 1978).
They commissioned a polling firm, Decision Making Information, to do a survey and find out WERE winnable arguments. Most of the data obtained were not surprising revelations. People were concerned about crime, favored locking criminals up, etc.. Then it came to Table 12. "Do you believe the Constitution of the United States gives you the right to keep and bear arms"? Yes: 87%.
We're weren't just talking in an echo-chamber of true believers!
UPDATE: Ah, Jimmy Carter. I have in my files somewhere the result of a Freedom of Info Act request, made decades go, relating to communications leading up to the 1980 election. I remember a memo from one staffer saying, essentially, someone is going to have to tell the antigun groups that we aren't going to do anything for them, and this must come from someone above my pay grade. Then there was Ted Kennedy, who was challenging Carter in the primaries. Handgun Control, Inc., which later became Brady Campaign, was pushing him to introduce a gun bill, and finally came out with a press conference saying he was going to do it ... which he got around to a week or two later. I interpreted that as -- even Kennedy didn't want to go public with a gun control bill at that point in time, and their press conference was a surprise move to push him into it. That may have been the point when the gun rights movement turned the corner. It wouldn't win them all, but the battle had turned from a retreat into at least a stalemate.
Permalink · NRA · Comments (2)
Bit of a media turnaround
In The Atlantic: "The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control)".
"Even the leading advocacy group for stricter gun laws, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has given up the struggle to convince the courts, and the public, that the Constitution grants only members of a militia the right to bear arms."
"I would much rather have been armed than unarmed. I was not, and am not, under the illusion that a handgun would have necessarily provided a definitive solution to the problem posed by Colin Ferguson. But my instinct was that if someone is shooting at you, it is generally better to shoot back than to cower and pray."
"I called [DC Mayor] Gray to ask him about his assertion that more guns mean more violence, noting that he himself travels the city with armed police bodyguards, a service not afforded the typical Washington resident. “
"In 2004, the Ohio legislature passed a law allowing private citizens to apply for permits to carry firearms outside the home.... When I called [Ohio Chiefs of Police spokesman] Gilchrist recently, he told me that events since the state’s concealed-carry law took effect have proved his point. “Talking to the chiefs, I know that there is more gun violence and accidents involving guns,” he said. “I think there’s more gun violence now because there are more guns." Gilchrist said he did not know the exact statistics on gun-related incidents (or on incidents concerning concealed-carry permit holders specifically, because the state keeps the names of permit holders confidential). He says, however, that he tracks gun usage anecdotally. “You can look in the newspaper. I consciously look for stories that deal with guns. There are more and more articles in The Columbus Dispatch about people using guns inappropriately.”
Gilchrist’s argument would be convincing but for one thing: the firearm crime rate in Ohio remained steady after the concealed-carry law passed in 2004."
"There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it. According to Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, permit holders in the U.S. commit crimes at a rate lower than that of the general population. “We don’t see much bloodshed from concealed-carry permit holders, because they are law-abiding people,” Winkler said. “That’s not to say that permit holders don’t commit crimes, but they do so at a lower rate than the general population. People who seek to obtain permits are likely to be people who respect the law.” According to John Lott, an economist and a gun-rights advocate who maintains that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens helps curtail crime, the crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is lower than the crime rate among police officers."
His tip of the hat to gun control is essentially, stricter background checks and and more training for CCW permitees.
Permalink · media · Comments (3)
NRA recovers another $98,000 against Chicago
It's an a supplemental award of attorney fees -- meaning fees for time spent litigating the original award of fees. Chicago opposed the original motion, arguing that since it repealed its handgun ban ordinance after the Supreme Court ruling, but before the trial court filed a judgment striking it down, NRA was not a "prevailing party." Chicago won in the trial court on that argument, but the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling.
Fast and Furious sentencings
Two get 3.5 years and 9 years: a third faces a max of life imprisonment.
What's sometimes frustrating is that the Feds will charge first, either for good reasons or for publicity, and then the State will ignore things, figuring someone else is taking care of them. Here, the Feds could charge conspiracy and dealing without a license. The State could have charged felony murder (meaning the death penalty, or "natural life" -- no release ever -- or ordinary life -- no parole for 25 years). It could have thrown on armed robbery, which I think has a presumptive sentence of 7.5 years, then aggravated it for use a firearm and a few other things, and probably doubled that.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (3)
Court slaps sanctions on atty who sued gun maker
It's a 34 page scanned pdf, so it is both detailed and slow to download. Reading the earliest versions of what happened, or was alleged to have happened, I find them incomprehensible. Bullets coming out of the trigger guard or the side of the gun? Then he changes to an out-of-battery discharge, but even that doesn't hold up.
The judge doesn't fix a number, but orders the defense to file its documents on attorney fees (with a hint that they shouldn't be tempted to pad things out). I suspect this will be a VERY expensive mistake.
Permalink · Gun manufacturer liability · Comments (5)
England cracks down on SAS veteran
A Iraq veteran, 17n years service, 11 in SAS, has been given an 18 month sentence after being found in possession of a Glock. If he'd just been a burglar, he'd likely have been ignored, or given probation.
Not all the media is in the tank for Obama
It's a heck of a situation, though, when Pravda is the one hold out.
Yes, gun sales are up
NICS shuts down due to Black Friday overload.
UPDATE: at Montana Rifleman, which produces barrels for DPMS and others,
"The company is currently running a 10-hour day shift seven days a week, and a night shift Monday through Thursday. Sipe said if he can fill out his machinist positions the production line will be running day and night, seven days a week."
Perhaps the most incredible pistol shot of history
Story here. Skim down to Owen J. Baggett.
Under those conditions, an event cannot be confirmed. But, as Winston Churchill said, if it is not true, it deserves to be.
SAF taking on Bloomberg Mayors
The Washington Times has the story.
It's time for Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors to join the fight!
NRA recovers $125,000 in attorney fees against Chicago
In Gowder v. Chicago. Chicago barred issuance of a handgun permit to anyone with a firearm-related misdemeanor, including nonviolent ones, and Gowder had been convicted of misdemeanor carrying.
The case is a nice illustration of how many courts are taking the Second Amendment seriously, and extending it past the context of absolute bans.
An interesting question
"Do the Seattle Police Keep An Illegal Instant Firearms Database?"
FOPA provides:
"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. "
That relates to rules or regulations. Whether the information could be disclosed to a State without such a rule would, I'd imagine, be a matter under the Privacy Act.
Unusual risk management at NRA
"Moving $25 million worth of guns across the country is not something Emily Cummins usually handles. As risk manager for the National Rifle Association (NRA), Cummins is used to the more “typical” daily loss exposures: working in fine arts (collector guns are indeed fine art items), canceled conferences due to lousy timing, even hacktivism. But when she got the call in 2009 to take possession of a bequeathed firearm collection, she put together a risk management plan that rivaled Pentagon security."
Not only did the $25,000,000 donation have to be moved two thousand miles, without loss, it had to comply with all firearm laws on the way....
UPDATE: good point, FOPA should protect here. Although it's still a good idea to comply with all the laws that you can, since at least a couple of Federal courts have concluded that that part of FOPA creates an affirmative defense, not a bar to arrest. That is, the person can be arrested and charged, and argue his FOPA defense to the jury.
Might be a little clumsy for use in a forest
Florida review of no-retreat calls for little change
To the great disappointment of those opposed to self-defense.
One amusing side issue. The article claims "Two dozen states have passed similar laws since 2005, and several studies show that so-called "justifiable homicides" have increased significantly in the places that have enacted "stand your ground" laws," while another newspaper's article claims that "There remains no evidence that before 2005 Floridians who had lawfully protected themselves were being charged with crimes, let alone convicted." Hard to have it both ways: the law has a significant impact, yet it didn't change anything.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (1)
Perhaps overzealous
She gave a whole new meaning to "get out the vote drive".
When lawyers attack
Only the legal profession would put on suits and ties before mugging people.
He doesn't waste any time
Here's hoping the reported differences between the parties are sufficient.
UPDATE: yep, treaties have to ratified by the Senate, for which there is low to zero probability here. And here's a Reuters article on it.
The Illegal Mayors show their criminal tendencies again
Former Baltimore Mayor ( and member of Bloomberg's group) Sheila Dixon has been charged with violating probation. She was originally charged with perjury and with stealing gift cards meant for indigent families!!! She somehow was given probation before judgment -- here called diversion -- keep your nose clean for a year or so, and in this pay pay restitution, and we drop charges. Well, she stopped paying restitution ....
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
Interesting tactic....
Sabotaging ammunition for the jihadi enemy. Given the enemy's quality control, this is just raising the odds of a mishap.
Louisiana passes constitutional provision mandating strict scrutiny
Louisiana has become the first State with a constitutional provision mandating strict scrutiny in reviewing the constitutionality of gun laws. With "shall-issue" having succeeded everywhere it's likely to, and some places where it wasn't likely, this may be the next wave.
UPDATE: yes, the standards of review are purely court-created, and in fact some Justices have refused to employ them. That and they have varied from time to time -- when I was going to school, there were only two, strict scrutiny and rational basis. Now there's intermediate. And courts still have the ability to play with them somewhat, but at least this minimizes how much wiggle room a court has.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (4)
Bloomberg seems to be losing it
"Looting has also become an issue in parts of the city. Police say 15 people in Queens are accused of ransacking various businesses in the Rockaways. ... In Brooklyn, police say more than a dozen people were arrested in Coney Island alone for looting."
Bloomberg's response: "the NYPD is the only people we want on the streets with guns."
We'd expect that'd be his response to self-defense, but he was talking about the National Guard.
UPDATE: HotAir wonders: "I’m not sure, but I think we’re witnessing the complete implosion of somebody who was once considered a pretty influential politician on the rise. Yes, Bloomberg doesn’t much care for the Second Amendment and doesn’t want people to have guns. We get it. But we’re talking about the National Guard here. Has this guy completely lost his mind?"
ANOTHER UPDATE: Bloomberg canceled (after receiving much public pressure, and making apologies) the NY Marathon, with its press center powered by four large generators. But, the NY Post is reporting,
"The city left more than a dozen generators desperately needed by cold and hungry New Yorkers who lost their homes to Hurricane Sandy still stranded in Central Park yesterday.
And that’s not all — stashed near the finish line of the canceled marathon were 20 heaters, tens of thousands of Mylar “space” blankets, jackets, 106 crates of apples and peanuts, at least 14 pallets of bottled water and 22 five-gallon jugs of water.
This while people who lost their homes in the Rockaways, Coney Island and Staten Island were freezing and going hungry."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (3)
Man robs wrong bank
You'd think the signs on the door reading "“Management recognizes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an unalienable right of all citizens" would have told him this was not the bank to rob. As it was, there weren't any armed customers there at the moment, so the bank president had to use his own gun.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (0)
Not a way to bring a 2A test case
Ruling here. A major consideration in a test case is to put forward a plaintiff who is as "clean" as possible, taking a position as reasonable as possible. Shelly Parker, Dick Heller, Otis McDonald. Here, plaintiff's idea of setting things up was to go walking thru a park, in camo, with a loaded AK pistol... and the tip painted orange, as if to pass for a toy gun. And carrying a tape recorder, just making clear he was anticipating something happening. As it turned out, he was detained but not arrested, and so he sues the officers for damages.
It was lucky -- actually, luck had little to do with it, it appears to have been SAF's strategy as amicus -- that the Second Amendment didn't take any damage. In a 1983 action, a defendant can argue qualified privilege, that a right was not "clearly established" at the time he acted. So the court simply concluded that maybe there is a right to do this, maybe there is not, but whatever it may be it was not clearly established at the time. Whew!
Infographic on the candidates' positions
Right here. Via Instapundit.