Arms and the Law

Opinion here. I might not agree with the result, but it is well-written and performs the historical inquiry required by Bruen. The method does highlight a core question: is it the initial popular understanding of 1791 or of 1868 that matters?

The reasoning is implicitly: the fact that a (state) restriction existed or was widespread at the relevant time establishes that it was seen as an exception to the right to arms. One limit on this reasoning is that the Supreme Court early on ruled that the federal bill of rights did not bind the states. Not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court eviscerated it. So state legislatures would have been adopting restrictions, not against the background of the Second Amendment, but against the background of their state bill of rights, and some contained no right to arms, or limited it to "for the common defense."

A Marine colonel, filing an affidavit in an "assault weapon" challenge, says a single .223 hit will cut a person in half, not to mention a lot of other things that suggests he hasn't the least understanding of firearms or ballistics.

Marine Corps to shut down scout/sniper program. It's not clear whether the entire program is being changed or just the title, deleting "sniper" from scout/sniper. But if the latter, since when did USMC concern itself with sounding pacific?

Chicago honors her legacy with a 21 murder salute.

Here is SAF's motion for summary judgment, via attorney David Sigale. It is VERY well written.

Here's a manuscript on the Bruen decision, written by Profs Brannon Denning and Glen Harlan Reynolds. Good insight and a very good read!

Story at The Reload. Brady brought a lawsuit on their behalf against gun dealers and manufacturers, trying to get around federal and state laws providing that you can't sue on a theory of "you sold the gun, so you are responsible for its criminal use." They lost, and Colorado law allows recovery of attorneys' fees.

Brady Campaign announced, "Nonprofits like Brady do not have the financial funds to pay for unsuccessful suits that clients decide to bring, which is why we always make clear to clients the financial risks involved in these lawsuits." Their clients had to file for bankruptcy.

Federal judge, in test case, orders Illinois to bring in a sample of every gun banned under its new "assault weapon ban." I bet the state argued that its ban could pass muster because it just banned a few type of firearms, and the judge decided to call its bluff.

Story here.

"The group's open display of guns -- broadly legal in Michigan -- was greeted by many people not for being threatening but for protecting Black women in dangerous neighborhoods at night.

The group, New Era Detroit, has been carrying out this kind of public safety work in the city's most crime-ridden streets for almost a decade."

Right here. The case is a challenge to California's "assault weapon ban," and the brief is VERY well-written.

Anderson v. 8th Judicial District. Ct. (2022). The test for right to a jury trial is whether the legislature seems to have treated the offense in question as "petty" or "serious," and the US Supreme Court has ruled that a potential sentence of six months or less should be presumed "petty" (although six months in a cell doesn't seem very "petty" to me).

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the legislature, in adding a gun prohibition to the consequences of a DV conviction, had shown it now considers the violation "serious," so that jury trial must be allowed. It cited Heller and McDonald.

Associated Press: "Turmoil in courts on gun laws in wake of justices' ruling."

Over at Instapundit. The place appears to be falling into Mad Max level dysfunction, and its citizens are learning to fight for themselves.

What they need is the appropriately-named Sheriff John Slaughter.

The Times discovers gun free zones don't protect anyone.

Right here. I have an 1859 book, "Rifle and Rifle Practice," in which the author points out how tactics must change in light of the advent of rifled muskets. Previously, artillery batteries attacking infantry would deploy at just beyond musket range, 200-300 yards, and shred the infantry with canister. Based on a British experiment with rifled muskets, the author concludes that a battery deploying at that range would be immobilized by hits on its horses in just a few minutes, and be unable to fire due to hits on its artillerymen in a few minutes more.

Why do courts consider legislative enactments, restrictions on the right to arms, as evidence of the popular understanding of the Second Amendment? Those seem to be the main focus in recent decisions.

The underlying reasoning must go like this: (1) legislators would not enact a law if they thought it was unconstitutional (yeah, I know this is quite an assumption) so (2) the fact that they did enact a restriction on a right (around the time of the framing(s)) is evidence, or at least suggestive, that what was restricted was not seen as within the right in question.

Apply that to the Second Amendment. As of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court had ruled that the federal Bill of Rights did not restrict the states. As of the Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank (1873 and 1876), the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th Amendment didn't require states to conform to the federal Bill of Rights, either.

So state legislatures would have understood, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, that the Second Amendment did not bind them. The above reasoning is thus without basis. A state legislature's enactments don't suggest that the legislators thought the restrictions comparable with the Second Amendment, because they wouldn't have thought that the Second Amendment constrained their actions.

Opinion here. Now, the defendant was someone who ought to be behind bars, for a long time, and fn. 4 suggests that he will be behind bars for a time on state charges. Given that, I wonder why the federales brought charges, over what was the least of his offenses. Maybe looking for publicity?

The Fifth Circuit notes that, under Bruen, the test is text, history, and tradition, and the analogs the government advanced were either inappropriate (the Militia Act of 1662, which was part of the basis of the 1688 Declaration of Rights) or simply stretching things too far.

Opinion here. The court expands the TRO to prevent enforcement in additional classes of alleged "sensitive places."

I received my ballot issue of TAR today, and these are my thoughts. Chime in with your own.

I personally am very impressed by Curtis Jenkins (just look at his bio for an idea of how committed he is to the cause--his bio starts with him being a Georgia legislator who introduced the first bill protecting manufacturers against BS lawsuits, 16 years in the GA House with NRA A+ ratings), and Steven Schreiner (he's committed as well, and earned in combat the Silver Star and Bronze Star with "v").

Others that do especially good service are Tom Arvas, Bill Carter, Charles Cotton, Walt Walter, Patrica Clark (in the competitions and shooting areas), and Amanda Suffecool sounds like she will be a useful addition.

As always, I'll be voting for the people I think are tops, not for the entire 26 that you are allowed to. Voting for the entire 26 means risking that your #25 or 26 will be elected over the head of the people you ranked #1 or 3.

Both FPC and the state have agreed to an order forbidding the state to enforce a new law forbidding handgun carry by, and issuance of concealed carry permits to, 18-20 year olds.