Arms and the Law

Story here.

UPDATE: I believe one of the stolen firearms was full-auto; the reporter was, I think, just unclear.

Fox is reporting that one of the victims of the Virginia Beach shooting wanted to bring a gun in her purse for protection against the killer, but refrained because it was a "gun free zone." The killer wasn't stopped by the policy, of course.

Carry out the well-regulated militia part of the Second Amendment with a guns for all program.

An interesting comparison, for use when someone gripes about the "gun lobby" using its dollars to influence Congress. Last year the NRA reported just over $5 million spent on lobbying.

By way of comparison, the Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $95 million, the National Ass'n of Realtors $72 million, and the "Open Society Policy Center" $31 million. Blue Cross spent $23 million, Comcast spent $15 million, and Facebook spent over $12 million.

A stripper clip that enables the user to load ten rounds in a second or so, directly into an AR-15. Since it can be used to feed a fixed magazine, it is just the thing for shooters whom fate has condemned (temporarily, they may hope) to live in California. Give an AR-15 a fixed magazine and it's no longer an "assault rifle" there, from what I recall.

Hat tip to Clayton Cramer...

NSSF thinks rather highly of him.

Utica, NY: 64 year old man shoots and kills two burglars, age 57 and 27, coming up the stairs toward him. The two had criminal histories: the older had been arrested more than twenty times.

The homeowner is being held on $10,000 bond, on a felony charge since the gun was registered to his deceased father and not to him.

Story here. If convicted on the DV, he'll become a prohibited possessor, of course. The unlawful imprisonment means he probably restrained her, and the mischief probably means he damaged property. Adding on those extra charges suggests the arresting officers were pretty hacked off at him,
Hope to get back to blogging now that legal duties have lifted a bit....

Links here. A tactical novelty by the other side: having briefs filed which in fact are anti-2A, but labelled a brief "in support of neither party." I can't quite see the point -- posing as neutral to make their message seem less partisan? Trying to disrupt the flow of briefing, and prevent petitioner from having the stage? It gives no time advantage -- briefs in support of neither side must be filed with the petitioner's amicus briefs, perhaps because the Court is aware of such a tactic.

UPDATE: there are about 26 amicus briefs filed, including ones by 118 Congressmen and by 24 states, and by the United States. Four or five (including Brady Campaign and Giffords) are actually anti-2A but filed as briefs supporting neither side.

The President has signed the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. On a quick read it seems to increase Pittman-Robertson funding for shooting ranges.

Plea agreement here. It gets interesting around page four. He was a security guard, and at night he would take guns and parts from guns that were supposed to be destroyed, take them home, and sell them. He stole quite a load, including some full-autos, and including 3,000 Glock slides!

And, for once, Brady Brady apologizes for politicizing their loss. There's a first time for everything, I guess.

Ammo.com has an interesting analysis of crime rates and gun laws in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

I recall once coming across a book, circa 1910, that spoke of crime rates in major American and British cities. (National level crime stats were then unavailable). New York and Detroit had much higher rates than did several British cities, long before any gun control worth mentioning in either nation.

Here, in pdf. I've skimmed it and it's a good one! I'd had my doubts about the Commerce Clause argument, but the brief lays that out clearly.

The one good thing about them is that no one can say "nobody is coming for your guns" anymore.

David Workman has a report. In the first, the Supreme Court denied New York's request to extend briefing schedules so that it could repeal the ordinances being challenged, and thus moot the case. That's why I've been slaving on an amicus brief rather than blogging...

New York did itself no favors when, in its request to the Court, it said it still believed in the utility of the ordinances. That left it open to a counter-stroke, which Paul Clement promptly and eloquently delivered, arguing NY's move was a transparent attempt to bail out of a lost case at the last moment.

I haven't been able to blog for days, working on an amicus for NYSRPA v. NYC, but here's travel tips for the NRA Convention Friday, when President Trump and VP Pence are due to speak.

Redstate report reports an incident, where an armed civilian stopped two guys beating an older man while people recorded it on their cell phones:

"Two things we can take from this...

For one, a good guy with a gun absolutely does see to it that violence is stopped....

The second, however, is that though the firearm stopped the fight, it would appear that this is where people decided the situation was disagreeable. This is a problem. If the man was aided against the two men then perhaps the gun wouldn't have had to come out. Sadly, no one did. He was forced to rely on the firearm.

Society seems to have less of a problem watching someone get beaten up than watching the would-be victim defend himself with the best means possible."

Every single bumpstock in the nation is lost in a boating accident.

"It's not clear why gun owners were taking their bump stocks boating. Some have theorized they were using them to fish, or just wanted to make sure they weren't stolen while they were away. Whatever the case, it's tragic that the bump stocks are now all at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans from coast to coast."

He appears to have been serious. So often anti-arms ideas read like something from The Onion!