Arms and the Law

"Tackling the Bruen bear," an online (and in-person) seminar featuring Steve Halbrook, Adam Winkler of UCLA, and William Taylor of Everytown, will be held on November 20, at 5:30-8 PM PST. You can register here.

From the Babylon Bee: "Gun owners call for common-sense Democrat control."

Hurrah! Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Steve Halbrook explains the significance.

The Supreme Court is keeping busy on gun matters! It just granted S&W's petition for certiorari. The government of Mexico had sued a large group of gun companies over guns being smuggled in, the companies pled the Lawful Commerce etc. Act, but the First Circuit upheld the suit on the grounds that the Act doesn't protect aiding and abetting of crimes.

The companies point out that aiding and abetting requires more than selling a product that some buyers will misuse; a beer manufacturer does not aid and abet a drunk driver or an underage drinker.

The case is Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852. Here's the transcript of argument. The government's argument was brief and not interrupted by questions. Then came a lot of questions, and only Gorsuch seemed to be doubting the government position (see pp. 20-30), though Jackson raised some interesting questions (see pp. 53-56).

A good summary is at SCOTUSblog. The author thinks the regulation will be upheld.

Story and pic here. He had an unusual scope mount and a strange idea for an eye shade....

Video here. No wonder Joe's wearing a MAGA hat these days....

An interesting article by Tom Knighton.

Related, since the discussion is of the "well-regulated militia" clause, my article in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy. I contend that the right to arms clause and the militia clause had different origins and different constituencies, and were not joined together until very late in the constitution-drafting game. One does not govern the other, anymore than that freedom to petition the government proves that freedom of speech and press are limited to critiques of government policy.

Right here. When Joe Biden is the civil libertarian/limited government candidate in the room....

Opinion here. It is an 84-page ruling, upholding some restrictions (no carrying in parks, bars, playgrounds, etc.),rejecting others (carrying in banks, bank parking lots, and parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings).

Here is another discussion of the ruling.

John Lott's research suggests it's a lot more often than either government or the media want you to think.

"The FBI dataset is missing so many defensive gun uses that it's hard to believe it isn't intentional and the fact that they never correct mistakes that are brought to their attention is even more damning. All the while, the news media unquestioningly reports the FBI's numbers, actively distorting the truth regarding the pivotal rule responsible gun owners have played in preventing crime and limiting casualties during mass public shootings."

Story here. How his people even mounted the scope backwards, let alone giving it to their commander, let alone him shooting it and not noticing, is beyond me.

The Navy has come a long ways since the days of Admiral Willis Lee, who won five gold medals for shooting events in the 1920 Olympics, and in 1942 blew a Japanese battleship to bits using radar-aided gunnery. I can't find the source just now, but he went ashore at Vera Cruz in 1914 and swapped fire with some opponents. In later years he was up for promotion but some questioned his eyesight (which indeed had limits), and another officer vouched for him, that he'd seen him crumple an opponent at 800 yards with iron sights, so they didn't need to worry about his vision.

Right here. They make some mistakes about the firearms, but it's otherwise good. One question I've had: what were the two Secret Service counter-snipers doing without spotters? Each should have had a spotter with binoculars looking at the big picture.

At Volokh Conspiracy, discussion of a case holding unconstitutional the federal ban on private "stills." Part of the reasoning is that the taxing power is limited to, well, taxes, and a prohibition on private stills raises no taxes. Nor is it "necessary and proper," since it does not punish non-payment of a tax, but imposes a penalty on people before the tax is due (i.e. liquor has been distilled).

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Volokh discusses a recent Ohio ruling. The plaintiff is the county coroner, the defendant someone who wanted some records, and got quite obsessive and obnoxious about it. The trial court issued a protective order forbidding the defendant to mention the coroner's name online, and forbidding him to possess firearms. The Court of Appeals held that the first restriction violated freedom of speech, and the second violated the right to arms.

The Supreme Court recently upheld 18 USC §922(g)(1), which forbids firearms possession by those subject to a restraining order issued after a finding that the person posed a "credible threat" to a family member. The Ohio decision suggests there may be a valid challenge to §922(g)(2), which forbids firearms possession by a person who is restrained from "harassing, stalking, or threatening" a family member, and where the restraining order "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury." The (g)(2) order requires no finding of a credible threat.

Opinion here. I'm still reading. It's by Roberts and 8-1, Thomas dissenting.

Opinion here. You can find a very good analysis at SCOTUSBlog, here.

It isn't a 2A case, but one of statutory construction. The majority holds that a bump stock equipped rifle neither fires more than one shot per trigger function, nor does so "automatically," both of which are required for a firearm to be a machine-gun under the NFA. Alito concurs to stress that Congress can fix the statute if it likes.

Antigun group has negligent discharge during gun "buy back." I guess neither they, nor police, nor the company scrapping the guns, knew how to check whether a muzzleloader is loaded. If the company doing the scrapping begins it by cutting down the barrel, I hope they check out the National Firearms Act, as well.

From PJ Media:

"Just a couple hours after his son Hunter was found guilty on three federal gun charges, Joe Biden is set to speak at Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund's "Gun Sense University" conference."

Strange that they don't mention this presidential visit and address on their Facebook page.

NRA v. Vullo, handed down this morning. 9-0, no less!

Not that the good guys are entirely out of the woods -- the Second Circuit had ruled that the suit must be dismissed because (1) there was no First Amendment violation and (2) even if there was the defendant was protected by qualified immunity. The Supreme Court only granted cert. as to (1), and will now remand to the 2nd Circuit, which is free to say, "aha, we rule in NY's favor anyway, on argument (2)!" See slip op. at 7-8, n. 3.