Arms and the Law

His title is "Weaponizing Death," and like everything he writes, it is well worth the read.

Opinion here. Reading it now.... lots of references to militia laws covering 16-18 year olds, and to Bruen's standards.

Samuel Whittemore. At the Lexington/Concord fight, age 78, he shot 2-3 British regulars, was shot in the face, bayonetted many times, bludgeoned, and left for dead. He in fact survived 18 more years.

At American Greatness:

"Defunding the police is based on the implicit assumption that greater criminality and violence, mostly directed against the most vulnerable, is a small price to pay, given a) the stigmatized criminal is given exemption, and b) the architects of defunding have mechanisms to ensure they are [not] exposed to inevitable spiraling crime rates.

Ditto gun control. The socialist point of neutering the Second Amendment is not just to disarm the populace, much less to prevent shootings. Rather, the aim is to ensure the government has a complete monopoly on arms, so that it can calibrate both the degree and nature of law enforcement, and thus render the citizen compliant and obsequious in order to ensure his protection from both criminals and the state."

Its governor just signed LB77, which provides for that and expands pre-emption. If my count is correct, that means 27 states now allow concealed carry without a permit.

2A test case, the judge asks the government what's the delay on issuing concealed weapons permits, gets an evasive answer, and replies "my application has been pending since last September." Mark Smith reports.

Here is Nelson Lund's take, and here is Steve Halbrook's.

Milwaukee police refuse to take their P320s home due to accidental discharges.

Update: There are skeptics.

Opinion here.

"Without the requirement of any input from a medical or mental health expert, the Court is required to make a determination of whether the respondent "is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in... section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law" (CPLR § 6342[1]; CPLR § 6343[2]). Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, a person's liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that the person is suffering from a condition "likely to result in serious harm." Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctor's opinion must be obtained and such opinion must be consistent with the first doctor's opinion. Absent from New York's Red Flag Law is any provision whatsoever requiring even a single medical or mental health expert opinion providing a basis for the order to be issued. New York's Red Flag Law, as currently written, lacks sufficient statutory guardrails to protect a citizen's Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms."

Story here. That makes permitless concealed carry the rule in a majority of states.

It's Worth v. Harrington, brought by SAF and FPC. Minnesota generally requires a permit to carry a handgun, and in 2003 the statute was amended to require that the applicant be 21 or older. The federal District Court strikes this down as violating the right to arms.

Good news! It took overriding a veto to get it done.

As far as claims that it was a "weapon of war," it turns out that ATF approved the semi-auto rifle for civilian sales years before the military adopted the M-16. Great detective and FOIA work by Len Savage and Stephen Stamboulieh.

Here's a report on the oral argument of five 2A cases on the same day. It sounds like the panel was very lively!

That's what he said. I guess it's a new prohibited person category.

Seekins v. United States. Defendant, a convicted felon given a four year sentence for possessing two shotgun shells, appeals on the basis of the Commerce Clause. The 5th Circuit upheld his conviction based on the argument (which most other circuits have accepted) that there is a sufficient connection with interstate commerce if the shells were shown to ever have moved in such commerce in the past.

United States v. Rahimi. Also a 5th Circuit case. The circuit struck down the prohibition on arms possession by persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The government took this one up since the facts are terrible for the defendant, who was a violent type who should've been behind bars.

Preliminary injunction granted. The case is Boland v. Bonta, Central District of California.

John Lott has found 35 of them.

Ilya Somin has some thoughts. I had much the same. If a state law simply says that state employees are not to assist in carrying out a federal law, that's perfectly permissible. As to any declarations the law might make, a fight over whether they are right or wrong is hardly "case or controversy."

...appears to be sunk. I don't agree with everything said (I like piston driven guns), but it makes sense. The ammunition seems like no one thought thru its cost or the fact that it requires tungsten from China. I'd add--the entire reason we and everyone else went to assault rifles was because rifles of full military power were uncontrollable in full auto fire. But if you dropped the power by half (from about 2600 ft-lbs to about 1300) it would be controllable. The new cartridge has a muzzle energy of 2200-2600 ft-lbs, so I doubt it would be controllable.

Add a two part cartridge case (head made of steel to withstand the higher pressure) and a projectile that requires tungsten... did anyone reflect that military ammo has to be made in incredible quantities, even in peacetime, let alone if war breaks out?