Arms and the Law

His statement right here. Well done. This sounds like an arrest that could have been handled with a phone call--we have a warrant, have your attorney call us to arrange a good time to surrender--or at most a squad car to the house or workplace. The alleged offense wasn't violent, the defendant was a guy with a clean record. Why raid in the night, cut power to the house, and risk a homeowner assuming it was a home invasion?

Haven't been blogging much, been sick and busy....

From a few years back, Dave Kopek explains the significance of the day to gun collectors.

News here.

Tomorrow, Saturday, at 11 AM Arizona (Mountain Standard, same as Pacific Daylight) time there will be a memorial service for Jay Knox, widow of Neal Knox, the first real head of NRA-ILA. You can view it online here.

Truth About Guns has the story.

"The arrest report lists Ceasefire/FLIP, two Chicago anti-violence programs, as his employer.

He's charged with Class X armed habitual criminal and being a felon in possession of a firearm. His previous felony convictions include being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2014 and narcotics cases in 2018, 2013, 2008, and 2007."

Lara v. Commissioner struck down the Pennsylvania ban on carrying by those age 18-21; the Court recently denied a motion for rehearing en banc. The dissent from the denial raises at length the question of whether a court should look primarily to the timeframe of the Second Amendment or that of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bruen dodged the issue by noting that the understanding of the right to arms, at least that relevant to the New York statute under consideration, was the same at both periods.

Virginia Citizens Defense League is reporting that Gov. Youngkin has vetoed (Oops, delete "voted") 30 anti-gun pieces of legislation! Here are his veto messages.

It's reported that he beat Carlos Hathcock's record. More.

US v. Emmanuel Ayala, Middle District of Florida. I haven't posted for a time -- I was both ill and busy -- but mean to get back to it.

Story here. Normally, an appeal is heard by a three-judge panel; from that the loser can appeal to the entire court, en banc. En banc hearings are restricted by rule (requiring a split between panels or other special grounds).

In this case, a panel had struck down Maryland's permit requirements, and the court voted to take that en banc. While it was at it, it voted to take two more appeals en banc, even though the panels hadn't yet ruled. I've never seen that done before.

Here. It's the memoirs of George P. Lebrun, New York City coroner at the time. He says that he wrote it and convinced "Big Tim" Sullivan to push it.

She's running to replace George Santos. "Lefties are practically wetting themselves because Pilip is an Orthodox Jewish Woman of Color Onetime Synagogue Vice President Former Machine-Gun Toting Paratrooper Mom of Seven."

He's arguing the unconstitutionality, under Bruen, of the federal ban on possession of guns by illicit drug users.

SAF, GOA, and California Rifle and Pistol are bringing suit challenging California's carry permit procedures, in terms of delay and cost, and unavailability to non-residents. Sounds like they did a very good job of picking plaintiffs!

A very good discussion over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Another win for FPC!

Josh Blackman has them, over at the Volokh Conspiracy. The government wisely chose the Rahimi case. It involves a violent goon, and the prohibited person category hardest to justify under text, history, and tradition. They want to challenge Bruen, or at least cut back on its teachings, and Rahimi was the perfect case for that.

Josh points out there is another case pending on cert (vote likely to be taken later this month), which is the converse. In the Range case, the prohibited person was such due to a conviction for welfare fraud, years ago. The Third Circuit upheld a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to the statute. If the Supreme Court grants cert, there could be an interesting interplay between the two cases.

Today the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two gun-related cases: Garland v. Cargill, which challenges the ATF "bump stock" regulation, and NRA v. Vullo, which seeks to hold NY liable for taking regulatory actions in retaliation for NRA's political stances.

Cargill will be interesting. For quite some time the courts have given "Chevron deference" to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Some members of the Court have challenged that, as abdication of the Court's responsibilities. Cargill is a fine vehicle for challenging that, since ATF reversed its position on bump-stocks (I seem to recall more than once). How does a court defer to agency positions that are completely opposed to each other? Did the meaning of Congress's enactment somehow change, without Congress touching it?

SAF and GOA, and others, get a 9th Circuit ruling that strikes down California's ban on gun advertising that might appeal to minors. Since it was commercial speech, the majority applied intermediate scrutiny; the concurrence argues that since it involved viewpoint discrimination, strict scrutiny should apply.

SAF, Crossroads of the West, and others get a preliminary injunction against a California law forbidding gun shows at government-owned facilities. The judge finds that the law violates both the First and the Second Amendments, as incorporated.

The Dep't of Commerce has stopped issuing most firearm export permits for 90 days, with no explanation given. In response, Global Defense has started this petition.