Arms and the Law

To be sure, this comes as no surprise.

A while ago, the military determined that using the Sierra Matchking bullet, with an "open point" as opposed to a hollow point, would not violate the Hague Declaration.

To the best of my knowledge, neither al-Quadea nor ISIS are signatories to that treaty. They can't be, since they are not nation-states.

The powers that be have tended to present the fight against them as rather law enforcement in nature: the objective is to "bring them to justice" rather than to kill them.

If that is the case, then domestic law enforcement is allowed to use hollow points (and every officer with any sense does so). Armed robbers, etc., are also not signatories to treaties. OK, why can hollow points be used against American criminals, but not against the enemy?

Now, this fellow is straightforward. Though I'd probably prefer Massad Ayoob as an expert witness.

Here. I think the real objection living constitutionalists have to originalism is that it frustrates judges' wills to power. Rather than conduct social engineering, they must execute the will of others (the framers, or framing generations, of 1788, 1791 and 1868).

But, as the framers themselves pointed out, that is precisely why they thought we could have a non-elected judiciary. Judges didn't stand for election, but they only carried out the will of those who did (the framers, or Congress).

Florida judge rules one aspect of "no retreat" (apparently, the fact that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense) is unconstitutional. Pretty far out in left field. The legislature cannot establish what is a defense to a criminal offense? Or it cannot determine who bears the burden of proof on that?

And as usual the media confuses "no retreat" with every aspect of self-defense. These cases involved who bears the burden of proof on self defense, not whether someone had a duty to retreat. Ditto for the Zimmerman case, where all the witnesses said that Zimmerman was on his back, pinned to the ground, at the moment he fired, and so had no way to retreat.

Here, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Some very good analysis. In 1934, they were treated as gangster weapons, although I don't ever recall hearing of gangsters using them. They tended to have their fights at pistol or shotgun range, not at 100+ yards. Originally the minimum barrel length was 18"; then the government discovered it had sold millions of M-1 carbines as surplus, and they had 16.5" barrels. So the minimum length was reduced to 16". Which did a nice job of showing how arbitrary it was.

It's a preliminary injunction, so no guarantees, but the option is here.

The opinion starts getting interesting at p. 16. At p. 26, the Court criticizes the evidence offered by the state. It sounds to me as if the state assumed it'd be a slam-dunk, no judge is going to enjoin the state no matter how sloppy our evidence, and so just threw a stack of paper at the judge.

The key appears to be adding a bit of vanadium. Interesting how valued it was -- the steel was made in India (tho I've heard some say Iran), shipped to Syria, and then distributed across the mideast and Europe.

If your reflexes are slow, don't force a burglary victim to open their gun safe.

Cert denied in Peruta, and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissent. That case had upheld the California gun law. But cert was also denied in Binderup, with Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor essentially dissenting (they write that they would grant the petition). That case had struck down the felon possession ban, as applied to a nonviolent felon whose case came long ago.

So there were four votes to take a case, all that is required, but they split between two cases. Rather strange. Thomas and Gorsuch I'd take as serious votes. The other two... maybe symbolic, cast only because they knew it wouldn't make a difference? But why do it without writing an opinion to go with the dissent? Of course the results of denial the two cases are 180 degrees apart, but if the Court really wanted a 2A case the votes were there.

Summed up here. A majority believe that the NRA either has the right amount of influence, or should have more influence.

In line with other surveys of which I have heard, 19% of gun owners believe they are members of the NRA. If that were true, NRA membership would be 10-20 million. Prior surveys have found that many people are not too clear about what makes you a member, and believe that belonging to a gun club or having taken an NRA course is all it takes.

A Canadian sniper in Iraq hits his man at 3,540 meters, or 3,871 yards. This puts him well ahead of the US record, 2,300 meters, or just over 2,500 yards.

Hat tip to Steve Schreiner...

Should Greece complain of American universities' cultural appropriation of philosophy, logic, drama, sciences, speech and rhetoric, architecture, medicine, art, and competitive sports? "You guys didn't invent that, we did!"

His Facebook page tells you all you need to know about him. Of course his political beliefs will be mentioned in the mass media... not at all.

UPDATE: more, on from folks looking at his Twitter feed. "Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump & Co." Here's a reported picture of him:

Rumor has it that he was a moderate Bernie Bro but was radicalized by watching CNN and Stephen Colbert....

Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens has thoughts about the nominee for the Secretary of the Army, Mark Green. All I need to know is that he believes an armed citizenry is a check and balance on the government, and that therefore citizens should be allowed to own anything the military has, including ships of war.

A view so hardcore that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would have approved it...

UPDATE: oh, yes, he and his work will be missed. I forgot.

New Jersey Supreme Court holds that Second Amendment protects having a weapon (or at least a machete) inside your house. On top of it, the issue wasn't raised in the trial court, but the New Jersey court finds that it was "plain error" that it can correct anyway.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has released it; I agree with David Codrea that reports are nice, but how about action?

NSSF is reporting that May 2017 had nearly a million (988,473) NICS background checks processed, an increase of 6.5% over May 2016. The media are apt to treat the great increase in firearm sales over past years as caused by people buying out of fear of confiscation or other limitation. I'd say any such fears are remarkably low just now, yet the sales levels not only are high but increasing. What we're seeing is a long term trend as Americans rediscover their love of guns and shooting. This is catastrophic for the antigun movement.

The U.S. was "created by int'l community in Treaty of Paris in 1783." It's from a professor of history at Harvard, who also chairs their American Studies department, so it must be true.

ISIS accuses Kathy Griffin of cultural appropriation.