« December 2013 | Main | February 2014 »
January 2014
Winchester recalls some .22 rimfire ammo
It's reporting that some of the two lots of M-22 listed were double-charged with powder. I'd guess that someone fired a round, with the expected result.
Beretta expands in Tennessee
Upset at Maryland's new gun restrictions, Beretta has decided to build its new facility in Sumner County, TN rather than at its present site in Maryland.
1933 Arizona Legislature ... the good old days
From the Journal of the (Arizona) House of Representatives, 1933, p.167:
At 10:21 AM, the Sergeant-at-Arms announced His Excellency the Governor of Arizona, who addressed the legislature as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, Gentlemen of the Senate, House, and citizens of the State of Arizona:
I am not here this morning with a .45-90, or any malice of any kind in my heart...."
Survey data on handgun bans
An interesting graphic. Starting with the first poll on the subject, in 1959, the support for a handgun ban was in the lead, 60%-38%. From that point on, support fell, with the two levels reaching equality in 1967. Then really began to decline, to where today opposition to a ban leads 74%-25%.
Prof. Nick Johnson's new book
Book TV will have Prof. Nick Johnson on to discuss his new book, "Negroes and the Gun: the Black Tradition of Arms." The next broadcast is at noon, EST, this coming Sunday. You can also get a streamed version by clicking on "watch this program" on the right side of the page.
I'm halfway thru the program, and it is very good. Law professor, degree from Harvard Law, but grew up in rural West Virginia, where guns ownership was universal. History: fugitive slaves getting guns, and using them to hold off slave catchers. Frederick Douglass. Underground Railroad units using arms to resist (and posting spies in court to get quick reports of warrants being issued). In more modern times, Robert Williams and the debate over expelling him from NAACP over his advocacy of armed resistance. The shift of the black political class against guns, in response to the Black Panthers, etc., and the latter's conflation of self-defense with political aggression. A great interview and sounds like a really great book!
Permalink · Self defense ~ · civil rights struggle · Comments (0)
2014 NRA Board elections
Got my ballot. I know almost all the people involved, but to sum things up briefly:
Directors who I think are absolutely indispensable to the organization:
William Dailey
Charles Cotton
Curtis Jenkins
Patricia Clark
J. William Carter
The first three are firearm attorneys who serve on Legal Affairs Committee (Bill Dailey and Curtis Jenkins also serve on Legislative Policy Committee). Patricia Clark is a competitor who serves on or chairs five committees in that field. Bill Carter serves on committees ranging from competition to law enforcement to finance, and yes, is the son of Harlon Carter.
Directors that I think are very important to the organization:
Bob Viden, John Cushman, David Bennett, Joel Friedman, Allan Cors, Tom Avras, Anthony Colandro, Ken Blackwell, Todd Rathner, (sheriff) Peter J. Printz, Carl Rowan, Roy Innis. Most of these are long-serving, experienced folks and lifelong activists.
Here are Col. Brown's recommendations. They overlap with mine except in one case.
If anyone has their own favorites, comment away!
Permalink · NRA · Comments (6)
We're in the best of hands...
On a related note, War on Guns is paging Mr. Snowden with a good question: did all that NSA snooping include looking at attorney-client communications?
Ruger, S&W stop selling handguns in CA
It's over CA's recently-made-effective microstamping requirement.
Gun buyback corruption in Philadelphia
Story here. An audit of $800,000 in DoJ grants to run a guy "buy-back" program showed that nearly $480,000 was corruptly used. The director of the program gave himself a $85,000 pay raise (without asking the board of directors to approve), brining his total pay to over a quarter of a million a year. He also spent thousands on gas, hotel rentals, and clothing. It paid $44,000 in rental and utilities for a building it used one a month. And it could not account for $28,000 in gift cards that were not traded for a gun but could not be accounted for.
On the side, it obtained 2,871 guns ... at a cost of $279 per gun. Since it handed out $100 gift cards for each, that indicates that close to two-thirds of the money went to "overhead." For an operation where the police actually collected the guns, and the organization simply handed out the gift cards.
Supreme Court transcript, Abramski v. US
Transcript of this morning's oral argument here. It's the case where an LEO who bought a gun for his uncle, and transferred it to him through a second FFL, was charged with making a straw man sale and with lying on the 4473 where it asks if you are the actual recipient of the firearm.
Initially, I was concerned because the Justices (apart from Scalaia) were pretty hard on Abramski's attorney. Then came the government's argument, and they were pretty hard on its attorney as well. Abramski's attorney then gave an excellent rebuttal, focusing on the positions the Justices had suggested. Rebuttals are too often neglected in appellate argument -- he certainly did not neglect his chance to score points!
Rather strange legal issue. The back of the 4473 says if you are going to make a gift of the gun to someone you should answer yes, you are actual recipient. The government theory here is that it wasn't a true gift... the uncle had sent him money for it, so he should have answered no. And if he'd bought it from himself and later decided to sell it to the uncle, he'd be okay to answer yes. I find it hard to reconcile all those positions, if the issue is how you answer that specific question: are you the actual recipient of the firearm? How can the answer to that question depend upon whether you meant to give it to someone as a gift or to give it to them after being paid for it?
UPDATE: If a relative asks me to buy a carton of milk for them, and I do so, wouldn't it make sense, at the point of purchase, to say I am the actual buyer and recipient of the milk? What the 4473 should say is something like "do you have any present intent to transfer this gun to someone else, other than as a gift?" or "do you have any present intent to transfer this gun to someone else, in exchange for money or something of value?" Then Abramski would have had to answer yes, or make a clearly false statement.
Antigun politician shows the depth of his knowledge
On youtube-- This is just incredible. He proclaims a rifle to be a "ghost gun," and explains that "with a 30 caliber magazine" or "30 magazine clip" it can fire thirty shots in half a second.
UPDATE: David Codrea found found the Ghost Gun. Looks pretty nasty, I can see why the legislator wants to ban it.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
DC going to trial over one cartridge
... and a misfired one, at that. Reporter David Gregory was given a walk on possessing an illegal magazine, but businessman Mark Witaschek is being tried on possession of one shotgun shell (which had proven to be a dud) in his house.
Permalink · arms law victims · Comments (9)
ATF's latest appropriation bill
Joshua Prince has thoughts.
Past appropriations bills had restrictions protecting FFLs, and forbidding use of funds to narrow the curio and relic list. These were missing from the current bill. But, Prince discovers, prior appropriations restrictions had contained language forbidding use of funds appropriated then "and in any fiscal year thereafter," which is a legally valid restriction, operating into the future, so it does not have to be repeated in later appropriations acts.
10,000 CCW applications in Chicago alone
And Statewide, around a thousand applications are being filed daily.
Duck Dynasty and the secular theocracy
I rarely watch TV, except for occasional football (it is better to be uninformed than misinformed), however David Theroux has has some interesting thoughts on the issue.
Interesting infographic
Violent crime levels of the 50 States. The levels can also be broken down by particular offenses.
Another example of dumb crooks
It's unwise to shoot a gun on a "reality" television show, if you're a convicted felon.
Permalink · Dumb crooks · Comments (1)
Sean Penn and firearms laws
Sean Penn (whoever he is) has his girlfriend (whoever she is) talk him into melting down his 65 guns. David Codrea asks a simple question: given that Penn has a domestic violence conviction, what is he doing with 65 guns, or even one, in the first place? Celebrities have different rules, I suppose, especially in California.
Oral argument in US v. Castleman
Here's a summary, from SCOTUSBlog.
The question is how to construe the Federal ban on possession after conviction for a DV misdemeanor. The Federal ban includes offenses that have use or threat of force as an element, whereas this State law forbids causing "bodily injury," defined to include an abrasion, physical pain, temporary illness, or impairment of the function of an organ or a bodily member. It'd thus include, oh, dosing a person with an emetic or a laxative, giving them the flu, etc., which are not uses of force. So does a conviction under that statute qualify as a Federal bar? As the Justices' questions suggest, this is a tricky question.
Permalink · 17th Century ~ · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (2)
Another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust
James Schiliro, former mayor of Marcus Hook, PA, was convicted recently of five felony counts relating to use of a gun. He brought a young guy home, plied him with wine, and propositioned him. When the guy refused and wanted to leave, Schiliro pulled a gun, shot into a wall, and talked of taking the fellow hostage.
Yesterday, he was sentenced to 10 - 20 months imprisonment.
"This is really a case of a complex person with complex issues," said his defense attorney. I suppose that's one way of putting it.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Injunction against Corps of Engineers gun restrictions
It's Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers, D. Idaho, Jan. 10, 2014.
The Corps promulgated a regulation generally forbidding possession of a firearm and other arms (with exceptions for hunting and use at authorized ranges) on land it controls, including 700 dams and associated recreation areas. The court strikes down the regulation on 2A grounds. The court reasons that the regulation affects the core Heller right of self-defense, and that possession in a tent is as protected as possession in a home, the regulation entirely forbids that, and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny.
It reasons that possession for self-defense outside the tent is also protected. It reasons that a complete ban on that is a serious infringement, but it is not necessary to pick a standard of review since this would fail even intermediate review. It grants a preliminary injunction since plaintiffs have proven a "strong likelihood" that they will win at trial.
Permalink · standard of review · Comments (8)
Women and guns: a growing phenomenon
Yet another report. I think it's one phase of the expansion and acceptability of gun ownership that, well, this is hard to phrase. I think gun ownership and use was quite acceptable in American society from the settlement of Jamestown up to the 1960s. Then, largely under the influence of the mass media, it became less favored. After half a century of that, it is returning to the norm. Of course, that half century comprises most of our lives (or all of the life to those younger than I) so it seems as if it were a sea change. The mass media is behind the curve, still thinking in the old terms and only slowly and reluctantly realizing the new.
Permalink · women & guns · Comments (3)
It must suck to be on the other side, pt. 1,257
Demo leadership pressures Bloomberg to back off.
"Message received: the most important public policy challenge of 2013 was not all that important after all, at least when directly balanced against Democratic control of the upper chamber of Congress. Furthermore, even the most principled among us can be moved to abandon their cause so long as the pressure is intense enough.
Where does that leave the grassroots Democrats who were so convinced by their party's representatives that blood will flow in the streets unless the Congress takes action on gun control? Well, maybe they will get a conciliatory call from Bill Clinton, too."
Via Instapundit.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (0)
Sheriff's Dept discovers Thompsons, trades for 88 Bushmasters
A very good deal, I'd say.
Chicago law forbidding gun sales struck down
Story here.
Chicago bans all gun sales within city limits (including sales by licensed gun dealers), and the court strikes that down. I've read the opinion (don't have an online link yet) and it seems an honest application of "intermediate review." The burden is upon the City to prove real, not speculative, reasons to believe the ordinance will hold down crime. The City cannot come up any evidence. Criminals don't buy from licensed dealers, they get guns from theft. That crime guns trace disproportionately to some licensed dealers may just mean those dealers do more business, hence their guns are more exposed to theft from the purchasers. In any event, the City argues that its buyers can just go to dealers outside city limits -- but that contradicts its claim that not allowing dealers inside city limits somehow limits crime.
New study on effect of CCW laws and AW bans
Right here. The conclusion is that tighter CCW laws, and the Federal "assault weapon ban" were associated with high homicide rates.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
Only govt officials are safe enough with guns
Giving a presentation, the New York State commissioner of Homeland Security uses his handgun's laser sight as laser pointer, not worrying that in bringing it bear the laser tracked across the foreheads of audience members. You can't make this stuff up.
Hat tip to reader Jim K. ....
John Lott on the ruling upholding most of the NY SAFE Act
He takes the ruling on, in the National Review Online. It's a very good article. Even under "intermediate review," which is what the court applied (as have almost all other courts), the government bears the burden of proving that the law is a "good fit, if not a perfect one" to serving an important government objective. It requires evidence, not speculation.
The judge cites a criminologist who said that "assault-weapon" crime declined after the Federal ban, but Lott notes that this is contradicted by the criminologist's published studies. (To be fair to the Court, it's possible that no one pointed this out). And he concluded that registration serves some governmental objective, even though there is no evidence showing this.
Impressive book!
"Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" by attorney Clay Conrad. 300+ pages long, it traces the evolution of what the author prefers to call jury independence. Essentially, at common law, up through our own Framing, and for a generation thereafter, juries were judges of both fact and law. Attorneys would argue the law to them (easier in the days when the law was Blackstone's treatise) and they would decide what it meant. Some judges would, at most, instruct on the law, tell the jury they'd heard argument on it, but suggest that they should give weight to the judge's interpretation since his advice was impartial.
In the mid 19th centuries, judges began to assert that their instructions WERE the law, and to forbid legal argument that contradicted their instructions. By the end of that century they were asserting that jurors' oaths bound them to follow the court's view of the law. The author then proceeds to answer objections to nullification. Historically, he suggests, the broadest use of outright nullification came from opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts and to the Fugitive Slave Act. (The latter did not allow an alleged slave to obtain a jury trial, but did allow a person charged with aiding him in his escape to obtain one, and in free States juries were happy to acquit despite the evidence).
Thieves pull gun, come under fire
Shoplifters pull a gun on security officer at a shopping mall. Not a good idea in Arizona, where we don't need no steenking permit to carry concealed.
Heresy!
Detroit's police chief speaks out:
"If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.
.......
Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.
"I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed."
Florida self-defense case
It's discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy. Florida law allows a defendant to move for dismissal on self-defense grounds prior to trial (which is unusual). If he or she establishes justifiable self-defense by a preponderence of the evidence, the case is dismissed. (If not, it goes to trial, where the burden on the prosecution is stiffer -- it must prove it was unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt).
In this case, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals rules that the motion should have been granted. Defendant left his gun in his car, since he was going into a restaurant that served liquor. There was an argument with two others, and defendant and his friend went outside for a smoke, during which he retrieved his gun.
The two who had argued came after them. The first attacker attacked defendant's friend, fracturing his eye socket, then turned on defendant. The first attacker was joined by another one, who defendant testified reached under his sweat shirt, as if for a weapon. Defendant fired, killing one and wounding the other. Knives were found near where the attackers went down. Defendant was charged with second degree murder. When he moved to dismiss, the trial court ruled that since he'd never actually seen a weapon, and since he should have fired a warning shot, dismissal was not proper.
Court of Appeals ruled, none of that is required.
My article critiquing the McDonald dissents is online
Right here. The online format isn't the easiest thing to read, unfortunately. You can click on the two arrows that point diagonally to get a larger image.