Here is his obit. Services in Moline on May 16.

Alan Beck is attorney of record. Granted as to question presented No. 1. The questions presented were:

"1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?"

(One part of the plan for 2000 was to put Ackerman-McQueen's PR contract up for bidding, to see if other firms would give us more for less; that went over like a lead balloon).

Bob told me that he was fairly sure he'd pinned down the location of the Lost Dutchman Mine, but someone had been blasting and triggered a landslide that buried it. He also had his eyes on a report that there was a cave in Mexico that had a large supply of Remington rolling block rifles in it, which he thought would be an even greater prize than the Dutchman.

But the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland's handgun purchase permit requirement. The 4th also rejected a facial challenge to a Fairfax VA ordinance forbidding firearms in certain places, including parks.

And a Delaware trial court cited the state constitution in striking down the state's ban on possession of handguns by young adults.

On the side (I don't have a link) the government withdrew its appeal of a ruling invalidating the ATF ruling against stabilizing braces for handguns. Plus, it withdrew its appeal of a successful challenge of the ban on carrying in post offices.

The story is from the BBC: I doubt we'll see it in the US media.

To the legal profession, that's not news. The risks of using AI are a running joke (except to the attorneys involved, who often get hit with sanctions). Judges don't have to worry about sanctions, just the embarrassment. As in this case, or this one. The most likely explanation is that the judge signed whatever his research clerk put in front of him without so much as reading it, and the clerk used AI. I mean, when a ruling names the parties to the case, and most of them are invented, invents events that were never even plead, and relies upon declarations (affidavits) from invented people... Which means the judge (at most) told the clerk he wanted to dismiss the case, research it and write me an opinion, and then signed it without reading.

update: AI doesn't do so good as a mental health therapist, either. Encouraging "patients" to commit suicide, or to murder the regulators of the profession, while framing someone else for the offense, probably doesn't meet the standard of care...

And in Traverse City, Michigan, a lunatic stabs 11 people, but stops when an armed citizen throws down on him. Good video, BTW. Here's more on Derrick Perry, the citizen who captured him, although the story says Perry somehow did so "using a store shelf as cover," while the video shows Perry holding a handgun, not a store shelf.

Clayton Cramer read the book and noticed its claims were contrary to his own extensive research, and began checking the footnotes and found they were often simply invented. Bellesiles claimed he was the victim of a right-wing witch-hunt and was getting death threats, etc. Initially the professional historical community rallied around him, but then some started checking things out and found that Cramer was 100% right. Further checking showed shocking problems -- he claimed to have found critical records in a library where you have to sign in, and his name was not to be found on their logs, he claimed to have examined probate records that hadn't existed in nearly a century (burned up in the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906), he claimed he'd lost many records in a huge building flood of which there was no record, etc. In the end the Bancroft Prize was revoked (first time that every happened), his publisher recalled the book, and he resigned his professorship.

Prof. Tillman tracks an interesting phenomenon. After Bellesile's disgrace, courts stopped citing him. (In fact the 9th Cir., which had just cited him, issued a new opinion leaving him out. From 2003 to 2020, not a single opinion, state or federal, cited him. But since 2020, he has crept back into judicial citations (although they avoid citing his book, instead citing his earlier articles. This suggests that the authors of the opinions are aware of his lack of credibility).

SEC. 70436. REDUCTION OF TRANSFER AND MANUFACTURING TAXES FOR CERTAIN DEVICES.
TRANSFER TAX.--Section 5811(a) is amended to read as follows:
''(a) RATE.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of--
''(1) $200 for each firearm transferred in the case of a machinegun or a destructive device, and
''(2) $0 for any firearm transferred which is not described in paragraph (1).''.
1 455 (b) MAKING TAX.--Section 5821(a) is amended to read as follows:
''(a) RATE.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a firearm a tax at the rate of--
''(1) $200 for each firearm made in the case of a machinegun or a destructive device, and
''(2) $0 for any firearm made which is not described in paragraph (1).''.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 4182(a) is amended by adding at the end the following: ''For purposes of the preceding sentence, any firearm described in section 5811(a)(2) shall be deemed to be a firearm on which the tax provided by section 5811 has been paid.''
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

By that standard, the new law goes into effect on January 1 (enacted and signed into law July 4, 90 days from that October 2, two days into the third quarter, fourth quarter begins January 1).

In related news, GoA and others have brought a lawsuit challenging the registration requirements that remain. It will pose some interesting issues. NFA was based upon the taxing power (in 1934, there was a lot of doubt about how far Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce extended, and could it reach simple possession of an item inside a state). Now that Congress has repealed the tax, can it still require registration? I have no idea, this is 100% new ground. I cannot think of another case where there is no tax, but still a requirement to file a tax return. Nor of one where a law enacted under the taxing power had the tax repealed. Can the government now shift to arguing the tax return requirement is justified under the Commerce Clause, when Congress did not invoke that authority? This may be the first time that question has been asked.