« June 2014 | Main | August 2014 »
July 2014
Self-defense lanyard
One of these just came over the transom. It's an interesting invention for those who live in or visit cities that essentially forbid you to carry anything like a weapon (Boston, as I recall, forbids even pepper spray, unless you have a carry permit). It's a lanyard for your key ring that, if you have a heavy enough ring, coincidentally turns it into a weapon. Just coincidence, understand. Just like the auto theft device known as "The Club" just coincidentally makes a good club. A .45 would beat either, but in some high-crime jurisdictions that's not an option, a legal option anyway.
As expected....
DC moves for a stay of the injunction. It asks either for a stay pending appeal (which would last until any appeal is decided) or for one of 180 days, to give it time to draft a permit system. I guess the City Council is a little slow-moving.
UPDATE: the judge granted a 90 day stay. He also clarified that the only issue raised was carrying of handguns, so his ruling is confined to that.
DC's reaction to Palmer
Alan Gura's blog post links to a pdf of a DC Police memo giving its reaction. Essentially:
1. DC residents who carry an unregistered gun can be charged with failure to register it, but not for carrying it. (By implication, those with registered guns can carry them).
2. Nonresidents who carry should not be arrested (but take note of their ID in case that changes).
3. Registrations cannot be denied because the owner is a nonresident.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (8)
Palmer v. DC: a win!
Blog post and link to opinion here. District Court of DC rules that DC's requirement for a permit to carry, combined with its refusal to issue such permits, is unconstitutional, and (2) so is its ban on issuing permits to nonresidents.
A major advance that finally expands judicial recognition to "bear arms." And a success based on narrow targeting of the issues.
UPDATE: the opinion's signature reflecting Syracuse appears to be due to the fact that the judge is a Senior (entitled to retire, but choosing to stay on the bench) District Judge from the Northern District of NY. I assume DC is like Arizona; we often have visiting judges (esp. in the winter!) I wouldn't be surprised if he came to DC over the winter, and has now returned home.
Looking at his bio -- I've often felt that the 2A gets a fair shake, provided the judge is at least comfortable with firearms. The problem is that many judges have spent their life at driving ranges, not shooting ranges. In this case, the judge served as an Army officer, trained as a ranger and paratrooper, and commanded in Vietnam. He's not likely to get jittery over the concept of good people carrying guns for protection against bad ones.
Permalink · Chicago aftermath ~ · Heller aftermath · Comments (15)
More on the PA hospital shooting
Story here It now appears that:
1) the murderer had a pocketful of ammunition, suggesting that, but for the psychiatrist shooting him and other staff jumping him, he would have gone on a killing spree. "We believe that Mr. Plotts, if it wasn't for the heroic action of the doctor and the caseworker, we believe he was there and was going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill."
2) The killer had been committed before, and his "records indicate has an extensive criminal past including a 1996 conviction for robbery, is prohibited from carrying a weapon."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (4)
Mercy Hospital shooting: bad guy with a gun stopped by good guy with same
Story here. The killer murdered a psychiatric case worker, and then was shot and seriously wounded by a doctor who was carrying a gun. The doctor was nicked by a shot from the killer, it's not yet reported whether that came before or after he hit the killer.
This may illustrate what others have noted: the other side can claim that mass shootings have not been stopped by self-defenders, because mass killings are arbitrarily defined to involve four or more dead, and when a self-defender is present he or she stops the attack before it can reach that number.
UPDATE: the doctor got three hits on the murderer. I'd say the good guy was no amateur.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (2)
Prof. Brian Anse Patrick releases "Zombology"
A bit of background: the good professor is a CCW instructor and author of "The Ten Commandments of Propaganda," "The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage," and "Rise of the Anti-Media: In-Forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement." His speciality is speech communication.
"Zombology: Zombies and the Decline of the West (and Guns)" argues that the recent zombie craze, while meant in fun, has roots in the unconscious -- roots which are favorable to our cause. Zombies represent fear of the way things are tending: they are brainless, dehumanized, collectivized creatures driven only to satisfy their own needs. (I won't be so crass as to carry the political comparison further). In the typical movie, the zombies are in fact created by government mistake, or spread by its incompetent response. Salvation comes from small units of individuals organizing on their own, and usually turning to firearms as their tool.
Here's a Youtube interview of the author (he gets down to firearms at about the eight minute mark, and later shows his collection), and here's the book's Amazon order page.
Radley Balko on race and gun laws
Among other things, he discusses a form of "sting" which has become very popular, and given rise to the concept of "sentencing entrapment." It goes like this: Federal agents recruit an informant and send him out. He tells others that he knows where there is a drug stash house, and he wants to form a gang to rip it off. The house and drugs actually exist only in his imagination. Others agree to join him. He specifies that one or more of them must bring a gun.
Then they charge everyone except the informant with conspiracy -- not to rob, but to possess the drugs for sale (since in any noteworthy quantity, possession for sale carries higher penalties than armed robbery). Since a gun was involved, the charges tack on penalties for that -- 5-10 years consecutive, without probation. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for drug offenses go up steeply with the quantities involved, and since the drug stash house exists only in the informant's imagination, he is free to invent any amount supposedly to be found that, and thus increase the sentences as far as he desires.
One judge (I think it was Posner) has pointed out that the effect of these stings is to protect drug stash houses, which seems a bit paradoxical.
Beretta pulls out of Maryland
"While we had originally planned to use the Tennessee facility for new equipment and for production of new product lines only, we have decided that it is more prudent from the point of view of our future welfare to move the Maryland production lines in their entirety to the new Tennessee facility."
I hope there will be a lot more such relocations, considering that the center of American gun manufacturing was historically Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Philadelphia settles class action suit
Joshua Prince announces that a class action brought by himself and two other attorneys has settled. It challenged Philadelphia's disclosure of private carry permit information. Philadelphia disclosed information regarding appeals from initial denials or revocations online, despite a State law provision making it confidential.
The settlement terms include the city paying $1.45 million, agreeing never to disclose again, scrapping information requirements that exceed those embodied in statute, and instituting a lot of other reforms.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (1)
iphone ballistic app
Right here. Not that I know much about apps -- I'm happy with a smartphone that will take calls, check email, and once in a great while call up a browser. I'd settle for the first two.
Can't infringe the Second Amendment, try the First instead
Rep. Robin Kelly (bought, or at least leased, by Mayor Bloomberg) proposes a ban on firearm advertising directly at children or their parents, such as prohibitions on brand name t-shirts and caps "marketed for children," and a ban on firearms in colors appealing to young shooters.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney calls for Capitol Hill Police to investigate Larry Pratt of GOA, since he dared to say that the Second Amendment is aimed at preventing tyrannical government. ( here's Larry's reply).
I guess if they can't get at the Second Amendment, they have to try to strike at the First.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
Media fad issue: Florida no-retreat and felons
Background: of course felons are generally forbidden to possess firearms. But if put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, they have the same right to self defense as has anyone else.
Then there comes the rare case where a convicted felon is not in possession of a firearm at the outset, someone puts (or allegedly puts) him in reasonable fear of death, the felon manages to obtain a firearm that he did not previously possess, and defends himself. Did he become a "felon in possession" in that instant? The cases of this are rare, I can recall 2-3 at the Federal level, with splits resulting.
In looking at this issue we must also bear in mind that (1) defendants may argue it when it is bunkum and (2) prosecutors anxious to win may respond in kind and push the envelope of reason.
Florida has a "no retreat" law, which provides that a person put in reasonable fear of death need not retreat before responding with deadly force. There are exceptions, one of which is that the defender was "engaged in unlawful activity" at the time. Some imaginative Florida prosecutors have taken to arguing that, in the case of a felon who argues self-defense, this does not apply, since by taking possession of a firearm he "engaged in unlawful activity" and is outside the statute. (I believe Florida was "no retreat" even before the statute, so I'm not sure this makes a lot of difference anyway). The lower Florida courts have split on whether this argument flies, and its Supreme Court has accepted the question in order to resolve this split.
The resulting media coverage: "Stand Your Ground may be defense for felon." "Tortured gun law now protects armed felons." "Stand your ground continues to rear its ugly head".
Permalink · Self defense ~ · media · Comments (4)
Lord Byron comes to mind...
Jersey City, NJ. Man wanted for murder ambushes and murders officer. His wife responds with ""He should've taken more [officers] with him," and ""Sorry for the officer's family. That's, you know, whatever."
They even built a memorial for the killer, complete with empty liquor bottles and a "thugs in peace" message. They should add an epitaph, with the words of Lord Byron
"In all of antiquity you'll ne'er survey
A site more dignified than this
Here lie the bones of Castlereigh;
Stop, traveller, and p__s."
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (0)
California's latest
Video here. California already had, if I recall correctly, handgun registration (in effect), State as well as Federal background checks, a 15-day waiting period, one gun a month rationing, no carry (open or concealed) without a "may issue" permit, and an "assault weapon ban." Not to mention expensive "safety tests" that have nothing to do with safety (witness the fact that police and prosecutors' guns are exempt from them).
But the low-info people interviewed want "stricter" controls without apparently having any idea what those might be. Presumably, the fact that crime continues proves that the gun laws aren't strict enough.
The legislature responds by making the "safety" requirements applicable to single-shot handguns, claiming that people are buying single shots and making them into repeaters.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (6)
Massachusetts' latest
I don't know what to file this under -- an example of where the other side wants to go, or an example of how newspaper stories are written by cut and paste of slogans that have been used and re-used for decades.
Massachusetts of course is about as restrictive as can be, but the legislature felt the need to "respond" to something by enacting something more. So it passed a bill with sundry additional restrictions, but declined one: rifle and shotgun possession requires a permit, but it's a "shall issue" one, and the legislature declined to make that "may issue."
So the cut and paste story is headlined "Massachusetts Senate approves sweeping gun bill, but strips key measure."
Here's a quote, emphasis added:
""Gun safety advocates said the change guts the bill.
John Rosenthal of the group Stop Handgun Violence, said giving police chiefs added discretion over the issuing of FID cards was the single most important aspect of the bill.
"Without it, it's not worth the paper it's written on," Rosenthal said. "Shame on the Massachusetts Senate. Sadly they voted against police chiefs and against public safety and for the special interest gun lobby and people will die as a result.""
Permalink · antigun groups ~ · media · Comments (2)
Amicus brief in ACLU challenge to gov't data harvesting
Here's an interesting article on its brief, filed by John Frazer of Virginia.
"Our brief in the ACLU matter argued that the government's broad interpretation of its authority to collect information from private entities could effectively override legislative protections for privacy, such as provisions intended to block gun registration. Our lawyer, John Frazer of Virginia, also referred to potential abuse of data mining. Aggregating forms of data to perform inference analysis about individuals and portray their connections and networks could allow the easy identification of our members and other gun owners for unlawful purposes."
NJ law: young mother facing 3 years' hard time
Shaneen Allen, a 27 year old mother of two, carried a pistol and a PA permit in her car -- but she wound up being stopped in NJ. Now she's looking at three years mandatory, no probation or parole.
Permalink · arms law victims · Comments (4)
Case on restoration of rights
US v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cr. 1996). The Gun Control Act technically doesn't forbid felons to possess guns; it forbids those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year's imprisonment, or of one expressly denominated a misdemeanor, and not punishable by more than two years' imprisonment, to do so. It also provides that a conviction does not count if the person has received a restoration of civil rights. In most States, a crime punishable by more than a year's imprisonment is a felony, so the difference is zero.
At issue in Indelicato was defendant's status when he had been convicted of a Massachusetts misdemeanor that was punishable by up to 2.5 years' imprisonment. Since that's more than two years, it brought him with the Federal ban. But since it was a misdemeanor, which loses no civil rights, there was no way for him to have obtained a restoration of civil rights.
The court decided to treat the matter as if Indelicato had had his rights restored, in the sense that he never lost them in the first place. It acknowledges that several other rulings have gone the other way: since the defendant never lost his rights, he cannot get them "restored" and is forever barred. I think it's a good approach (why would Congress have meant a misdemeanant to have a lifetime bar, when a felon would not), although it's not in accord with the language of the statute. This is one of the cases where statutory "interpretation" actually involves, not figuring out the legislative intent, but figuring out what would have been the legislative intent if the legislature had foreseen an obscure situation, which it didn't know existed.
Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (4)
Another "only I am professional enough to use this gun" moment
Officer shoots at dog, instead hits boy.
Rolling Stone on how to defeat the NRA
It's good for some amusement. The only good points are ones that have been used for decades... never let a good crisis, or victim, go to waste, and exploit them quickly. The rest shows a profound misunderstanding of the gun rights movement. NRA (by which they mean the gun rights movement) is only big "inside the beltway," so organize local groups. The gun rights movement went there years ago: CalGuns, United Sportsmen of Florida, etc., etc.. The gun rights movement has money, now Bloomberg will match it. Buying TV ads -- that is SO twentieth century! It isn't millions of dollars, but millions of committed supporters that make the difference, especially today, when thanks to the internet the mass media no longer have a choke hold on communicating with supporters.
Check out the 700+ comments: looks like Rolling Stone can't even convince its own audience. "I hope you got paid quite a bit for selling out, because this is disgusting." "stick with your laughable "100 Greatest Guitarists" lists. You don't even know music." Dude....seriously, voting will do. Signed, A Liberal Democrat that supports all rights, including gun rights" "Hunter S. Thompson would be SO ashamed of what has become of the Rolling Stone."
Permalink · NRA · Comments (2)
Remington 700 trigger suit settled, recall likely
Captain's Journal has the story.
NSA historical note
From Dick Morris' book Power Plays:
"In the spring of 1967 [presidential candidate] Nixon asked her [Anna Chennault, widow of General Chennault] to be his advisor on Southeast Asian affairs. As Herbert Parmet writes, 'cables intercepted by the National Security Agency from the South Vietnamese ambassador in Washington revealed that the 'Nixon entourage', working through Anna Chennault, was pressuring [South Vietnamese President] Thieu to resist the peace talks....'
Realizing what Nixon was up to, President Johnson ordered a wiretap on Chennault's phone. Yet whatever evidence the tap turned up went unreleased, since it would put the Democrats in an embarrassing position to admit that they had been using wiretaps to defeat Nixon."
Proposal to dissolve BATF
The proposal is being floated by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). I assume it's focusing upon the enforcement operations, presently in Justice. There may be a good case for transferring the industry operations to Commerce, as I heard proposed in the 1980s. BATF started out in Treasury only because the NFA was passed as nominally a tax measure. Commerce has historically dealt with regulated industries, and isn't famous for causing them problems.
With a proposal like this, I'd expect most of the agents to be transferred, but much of the management would be laid off, as redundant with that in the receiving agency -- which might benefit everyone.
Not that transferring functions to the FBI would eliminate all problems, but it might reduce them.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (10)
Mayor Ray Nagin takes the dive
Former New Orleans mayor (and former poster child for Mayors Against Illegal Guns) just got ten years in prison on his corruption conviction.
The judge "departed downward" from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which would have called for a 15-20 year sentence. A judge can do that, although the government (in this case) can appeal.
The prosecutor "compared Nagin's crimes with those of other public officials who drew stiff sentences, including former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (28 years), former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (14 years) and former Birmingham, Alab., mayor Larry Langford (15 years)." Kilpatrick and Langford were members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Blagojevich was about as antigun as is imaginable.
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (3)
Suit challenging Ohio State U gun ban
Complaint here. It's brought by Students for Concealed Carry and Ohioans for Concealed Carry. The campus code forbids possession of firearms or ammunition "even if otherwise permitted by law," plus placing other restrictions upon possession (interestingly, the code for residence halls also prohibits possession of knives, airsoft guns, "paint guns," darts, and tasers, and extends the ban to areas near the residence halls).
While there is a constitutional challenge, it sounds as if the statutory points will suffice: from what the complaint alleges, Ohio has some pre-emption statutes, including one specifically saying that public colleges cannot prohibit a CCW licensee from having a firearm in a locked vehicle, and restricting the colleges regulating matters off their actual property.
Chicago to pay nearly $1 million to NRA in fees
The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has awarded NRA $940,000 in attorney's fees against Chicago. I'm think SAF also has a motion for fees pending, so the full price tag hasn't yet been rung up.
UW study: gun violence linked to violent subgroups
It may seem obvious, but it's handy to have hard proof of this.
"People hospitalized with a firearm injury are 30 times more likely to return to the hospital with another firearm injury than people hospitalized for other reasons. And they're 11 times more likely to die from gun violence within the next five years, according to a study commissioned by the Seattle City Council."
I've seen this borne out by other studies: even in a high-crime neighborhoods, gun violence is largely limited to small subgroups of the population (meaning drug dealing gangs) who routinely use violence and have it used on them.
Practical implications: (1) gun laws need not aim at ensuring "only the best" have guns; they should aim rather at making it harder for only the worst to have them, a small fraction of one percent of the population. (2) There's no practical difference between "may issue" and "shall issue," except that "shall issue" lets more of the non-violent population carry. Both screen out the small number of bad guys, the difference is that "may issue" screens out more good guys, too. (3) Enforcement: even if guns are banned, and 99% of them confiscated, odds are that the remaining 1% will be disproportionately in the hands of career gang-bangers.
Permalink · Crime and statistics · Comments (3)
Interesting self-defense case
Richardson v. State, Mississippi Supreme Court, discussed over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Defendant was menaced by a guy who have moved in, became increasingly violent, and boasted of having been convicted of robbery and murder, of killing an informer in prison, and of belonging to a gang. Defendant eventually killed the guy, and the defense that he had come toward him, menacingly, with one hand behind his back.
The trial court refused to admit evidence that the decedent had in fact been convicted of robbery and murder, etc.. That'd be standard (if unjust, to my gut feeling). The American approach to self-defense keys on a reasonably fear of death or serious injury, and a person's fear could not have been based on what they did not then know (that the claims of conviction and past violence were in fact true).
But, the court reasons, the jury might have had questions about whether the decedent did in fact boast of those things. The fact that the boasts could be proven true might thus be some support for the proposition that the boasts were made. Ergo, the jury should have been allowed to hear of proof that the boasts were true.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Get out of line in this restaurant and they don't call a bouncer
It's Shooters' Grill, appropriately located in Rifle, Colorado.
SWAT teams as public charities?
I find this story troubling. ACLU was seeking to compile data on how often SWAT teams are called out in Massachusetts. It found that about 3/4 of LE agencies in the State organize their SWAT teams under "Law Enforcement Councils," which are entirely funded from LE agency budgets, but insist they are separately incorporated as 501(c) tax-exempt charities, and thus are not subject to public records requirements.
Hmmm... so they're private organizations? I suppose then that if they are sued they have only the legal standing of a private security corporation. Such as (1) there is no probable cause defense to a suit for wrongful imprisonment. A police agency is protected so long as its member had probable cause to arrest: in most States, a private party making a citizen's arrest doesn't have that. He is liable for false arrest unless the arrestee is actually guilty, however the suspicious the arrestee was. (2) There is no "qualified immunity" for actions taken when a reasonable officer would not have realized they were unconstitutional, even though they were. (3) There is no, I forget the case, but protection for the agency (as opposed to employees) unless the agency had a "pattern or practice" of violating constitutional rights. A private company is liable whenever its employee does a wrong in the line of duty, whether or not the company had a pattern or practice of wrongdoing.
Why do I suspect that the minute an LEC gets sued, it will discover that it actually is a government agency and not a private corporation?