Arms and the Law

There are estimates that we have 8,000,000 first-time gun owners over the past couple of years. Nearly half those were women, according to other studies.

I've said it before--historically, we were a nation of gun owners. I found a newspaper article describing New York City in the 1890s, saying that let a rabid dog run around Times Square, and you'd see how many people were carrying guns. Another New York City article from the early 20th century gave tips on creating a DIY shoulder holster. That trait was repressed during the 1960s, when gun ownership became unfashionable (or, to more precise, gun ownership among the masses became unfashionable to the elite). It took half a century for that to turn about, but it has turned. The present abandonment of certain cities to massed psychopathy, "defund the police," and police stand-downs while "mostly peaceful" protests burned out cities has certainly raised everyone's consciousness of the need to be able to self-defend.

Story here, without much detail.

I am reminded (hate to date myself) I was in Washington, DC, at the bicentennial of the Constitution. A big event, Warren Burger (thankfully a former Chief Justice) chairing the Commission, and so on.

The bicentennial of the Bill of Rights ... nothing.

Of course, DC is a company town, and the company is the Federal government. So the event that gave it power is a major celebration, the event that limited that power is best forgotten.

Austin pays a price for "defund the police". Murder nearly doubles, to an all-time high. This is called "bad luck," as Heinlein says.

I've seen it all now.

Los Angeles: Three men try armed robbery, the victim gets his hands on their gun, and kills one of the perps. I like a story with a happy ending!

Gun Owners of America v. Garland. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction against the ban, plaintiffs appealed, the Circuit went en banc -- and splits 8-8, with the result that the trial court ruling is affirmed by an equally divided court (which establishes no precedent).

The homicide rate is greatly up, at least in major cities, tho any push for gun control is unlikely because left/progressives/whatever are insisting that it really isn't a bad thing. They have to, because it's coming hot on the heels of their BLM, defund the police, end bail, etc. campaigns.

Something I noticed years ago, and haven't kept up on or researched more recently, is that accidental automobile deaths tend to parallel homicide trends. Sure enough, in the first half of 2021, auto fatalities rose by 18%, the largest increase since they've kept records.

It's even more BS. He didn't pull the trigger. It was a Colt single action Army, I think, which means he cocked it and pointed it at someone, at a minimum. If he let the hammer loose before it was fully cocked, the safety notch or the half-cock notch should have prevented firing. Those have been known to fail, but that's just another reason not to get stupid with a firearm.

Story here. The police academy has a gun store. and it turns out the manager has been selling a lot of guns "off the books." quite a few to officers.
One of California's more stupid restrictions is that only handguns on the state safety roster can be sold new at retail. Qualifying for the roster is expensive, and the manufacturer must pay, with the result that a lot of perfectly safe handguns are banned from sale. BUT the law exempts law enforcement (and if I recall, prosecutors). Obviously if it were really aimed at safety, why would you exempt law enforcement? Why would you want them to have unsafe items? But I digress.
The law does not, however, ban private sale or possession of non-roster guns. Thus there is a thriving trade in LEOs buying banned guns and then reselling them to non-LEOs.

An essay. Not so long ago, pro-gun liberals and Dems were a potent block. The 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act was sponsored by Harold Volkmer, later an NRA director, and passed by a Democratic House that rebelled against its leadership (a majority signed the petition to discharge the bill from Judiciary Committee). "Big John" Dingell was a pro-gun leader in the Senate. JFK and Hubert Humphrey were pro-gun. Today....

Update: An interesting article on how the criminal defense bar is starting to argue for the inherent injustice of gun control. Earlier, in NYSRPA, a group of public defenders filed an incredible brief on that theme.

Just glad it was Arizona State, and not U of AZ, my alma mater.

Good news! I know nothing about the PA governor, so don't know its chances there.

The prosecution closing arguments describe the rioters who were burning the town as "heroes" and Rittenhouse as an "active shooter" whom his attackers were trying to stop.

Story here. He's down in Mexico, and recognizes that the members of his parish need a little practical, if salty, advice. Pope Francis, take note!

Opinion here, from the Sixth Circuit. A win for GOA. A licensed dealer must perform background checks unless the buyer has a qualifying carrying permit. ATF initially ruled that Michigan permits qualified, then reversed itself. The District Court upheld ATF's position, but the 6th reversed and remanded for additional fact-finding. I wish the court had reached the Administrative Procedure Act issue, just because ATF has never been good at complying with the APA.

Commentary and video here.

The defense has made a motion for mistrial with prejudice (to re-trying the case). The standard for that is grounds for a mistrial plus proof the prosecution acted intentionally. Why? If a prosecutor is ill-prepared and his case is going down the drain, it's to his advantage to cause a mistrial, so he can start over.

The first time the judge chewed the prosecutor's posterior, the judge said something to the effect of, I don't know what you are trying to do here, which may suggest he was suspicious.

This time the prosecutor said he was acting in good faith, and the judge snapped "I don't believe you." It's probably gone from suspicion to belief.

The judge takes it under advisement, meaning he reserves the right to rule on it later, and warns the prosecutor not to let it happen again.

My guess: if it happens again, the judge will grant the mistrial with prejudice and a lot of findings about the prosecution motives, and how they kept screwing up even after he warned them. If it doesn't, the judge will wait for the verdict. If not guilty, no need to rule. If guilty, he grants a new trial.

Video here. Judge rips the prosecutor a new one, with good reason, and the prosecutor doesn't back down and apologize, but continues with a tone and body language that suggests defiance. Where did they get these people?

Story here. In its latest disaster, the attacker who was shot in the arm concedes that Rittenhouse did not shoot until after the attacker had pointed his own gun at him.

I'm hard put to figure how the prosecution's case could implode any further or faster. Rittenhouse was under attack by multiple persons, one of whom had been uttering lethal threats, he had fled from them, they cornered him, one fired a shot in the air and then aimed at him. It isn't a close question, and we are still in the prosecution's own case!

I've been practicing 46 years, and have never seen a case, civil or criminal, collapse like this. Any good attorney would have seen it coming, and dismissed or settled.

A fundraising text they sent out right after the Supreme Court argument in NYSRPA, saying that if the good guys win everyone will be free to shoot a gun anywhere (so send us $$).