Arms and the Law

Story here.

She's not one of those who would blame the neighbor for shooting her son, who was the drug-demented attacker.

"Mendez is now beginning a painful recovery.

She's also mourning the loss of a son she feels she truly lost to crystal meth, not the man who pulled the trigger. "There was nothing else you could have done," Mendez said she wants her neighbor to know. "And as sad as I am to lose my boy, you did the right thing. And I thank you for my life."

From an article in the Idaho Statesman (which cites Clayton Cramer and John Lott).

Between 1986 and the present days:

States prohibiting concealed carry, with no licenses to do so available, shrank from 16 to 0.
States allowing permits on a discretionary "may issue" basis shrank from 25 to 9.
States allowing permits on a "shall issue" basis rose from 8 to 36.
States allowing concealed carry with no permit rose from 1 to 5.

All this over a period when both total homicides and gun homicides have fallen by about half.

As a publicity ploy, "States United to Prevent Gun Violence" (an astroturf group created by Bloomberg) sets up a fake gun store in New York City, with seemingly real guns hanging on the walls. But not too long ago, New York City announced:

Joshua Prince has an interesting post. The key is that the NFA says a "person" may register and pay taxes on an MG, and 18 U.S.C. §922(o) says a "person" may not possess a post-ban MG, but the two statutes have different definitions of "person." An unincorporated trust is a person within the definition of NFA, but is not a person within the definitions of the GCA, which govern §922(o).

Video of his testimony here.

Story here. My friend Phil Murphy had a similar experience. He held a burglar at gunpoint until police arrived. The local media did interview him. He mentioned that he'd used an AR, and, strangely, the story never saw the light of day.

Plaintiffs sue Harrisburg, PA, in state court, over its gun restrictions (I assume on preemption grounds). Harrisburg files a removal to Federal District Court (I assume some Federal legal issue was involved, don't know the details). But the removal motion omits one plaintiff, so plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Prince files for default judgment in state court, in the plaintiff's name, since the city never answered the complaint. He reportedly gives notice to Harrisburg (some rules require giving advance notice of an intent to take a default judgment) and the city ignores it. So he takes a default judgment for $20,000 plus.

Now the city wakes up and moves to set aside the default judgment. That's possible, but if the PA rules are like the federal ones, it's a heavy burden of proof. And the first question is going to be "he gave you written notice, well in advance, that he would take a default ... why didn't you object then, or move to add this plaintiff to your removal motion?"

It's gotten to where even WashPo is criticizing them.

I didn't have time to say anything when the ballot arrived, I was swamped with work and barely had time to fill out my own, and besides, everyone on the ballot seemed qualified. But thinking of my associates from Interior Dept days, I realized that William "Bill" Satterfield was on it. He's a good one, a 'Nam vet, was Deputy Solicitor under the Reagan administration, then General Counsel to FERC, then returned to private practice. He's a shooter and a hunter, and serves on NRA's Legal Affairs Committee and its Civil Rights Defense Fund.

Decades ago, when I worked in Interior Department's legal shop, the Solicitor's Office, a good buddy was Rick Robbins, Assistant Solicitor for National Capitol Area Parks. They handled all legal issues for the Park Service in the DC area, things ranging from litigation over the rules for protests on the White House sidewalk to issues in the battlefield parks near DC (as I recall, extending out to the Bull Run battlefield). In those days, Rick was clean-shaven and, like all of us, in shirt and tie, with jacket in the closet in case we were called to a meeting of importance. He had one heck of a sense of humor, and really, really, really loved to hunt.

Rick just sent me this video of him today, retired to rural Virginia.

It bans the American flag (apparently even from private display).

And the student resolution doing so demonstrates how literacy and clear thinking are no longer requirements for getting into that college: "[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy." Apart from noun-verb disagreement, this is brain mush.

I'd like to extend on Iowahawk's comment to that article: cut the university off from direct fund transfers, and send all student loan and federal grant money in with tiny flags printed on the check. Somehow I suspect they'd speedily overcome their aversity to flags.

Guided by comments to the previous post (thanks!) I find that BATF just posted online a notice that its removal of M855 ammo from the exemption for AP ammo is a mistake. Sounds like the decision was made to remove M855, while allowing a sham comment period, and whichever team compiles the annual list of published ordinances was told about the decision but not told "but, 'officially,' this decision hasn't been made yet, so don't let it out."

Those responsible are probably down on their knees thanking the Almighty that this happened in early March. (Federal agencies do job evaluations after the end of the fiscal year, end of September. If you foul up in winter or early spring, you can hope that your supervisors forget about it by then. A disaster in September is a REAL disaster!)

ATF is required to publish, and I believe annually update, a list of "published ordinances" relating to guns, for guidance of firearm dealers. In mid-February, ATF announced that it was seeking comments on its proposal to removed the "sporting purposes" exemption of M855 ammunition, meaning that (if ATF's interpretation of the ban on handgun "armor piercing" ammo is correct, which I've critiqued earlier) the M855 would be banned. Further, anyone having M855 projectiles would commit a felony by handloading them (the ban applies, not to "manufactures" which the gun statutes narrowly define; instead it makes it illegal for "any person to manufacture" such ammo).

Katie Pavich has made an astounding discovery: the 2015 book of published ordinances, released in January, deletes the exemption for M855 ammunition. The decision was made BEFORE the agency sought comment on it! Possibly long before, since releasing a book in January requires editing it well before then, and getting it to the Government Printing Office so they can run the presses.

The State Bar is offering three hours CLE credit to watch "In Search of the Second Amendment," followed by an hour discussion by your humble servant.

Over at Real Clear Policy, Robert VerBruggen has thoughts on the issue.

For $21,000 in attorney fees, plus such damages as may be proven at trial, in an action charging that the city's gun ordinances violate the Pennsylvania preemption statute.

Story here. This is the case that struck down the GCA ban on interstate handgun sales by licensed dealers.

The government asked for a sixty-day stay so it could consider whether to appeal. We all know it's going to appeal, but the government wanted to proceed in its usual way (pondering everything, with meetings and exchange of memos and alerting 10,000 people before officially reaching the only obvious conclusion, hey, I used to be a GS-14 and know the ropes). The judge said, no way, you'll meet the deadline imposed on every other case.

It'll be at the NRA annual meeting in Nashville, on April 11. And how often can you satisfy your CLE requirement while watching Massad Ayoob share the stage with Instapundit? I've read some of Massad's advice to defense attorneys, and it was first rate. His pieces on the George Zimmerman case were astounding in their depth.

CalGuns Foundation link to the ruling is here. You can read the first few pages and know what the outcome will be. California seeks to ensure guns are safe, etc., etc., so only very safe guns are put on the roster ("Safe" means, for example, that the gun must have a loaded chamber indicator that somehow allows a new user to know whether the firearm is loaded without consulting the manual. Every loaded chamber indicator I know of assumes that you read the manual or had someone point it out to you, so at least you know what to look for).

The contrast comes at the very end, when the court has to deal with the fact that the statute exempts law enforcement personnel (including, as I recall, employees of prosecutors' offices). The court simply pronounces that police may have different needs for firearms than do non-police. But if the roster would truly about safety, the question must be, do police and prosecutors have a special need for unsafe guns?

One plaintiff had no right arm, and wanted a Glock with an ambidextrous magazine release. But while the Glock he wants is on the roster, California does not list it with an ambidextrous release, and considers that a different, and unlisted, firearm.

Posted here.

"One of the heroes of the Waco fights of the 1990s has passed away. Mike McNulty did more than any other single person to doggedly pursue the truth about Waco. And he produced or co-produced a number of superb films that vividly and compelling explained why the feds were lying about the carnage they unleashed in Texas. And he fed great information to me and other journalists - as well as sometimes impatiently pushing us forward, urging us to turn over more rocks."