Arms and the Law

Announcement here. Brian D. Aitken will discuss his book "The Blue Tent Sky: How the Left's War on Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom" at the Cato Institute. They'll also have the discussion online.

Hat tip to Alice Beard....

It's been widely assumed that telephone surveys of gun owners understate the real numbers, because some proportion of them are reluctant to disclose ownership to a stranger. I recently found two pieces of research on the question.

Arthur L. Kellerman, et al., Validating Survey Responses to Questions About Gun Ownership Among Owners of Registered Handguns, 131 J. OF EPIDEMOLOGY 1084 (1990)... yes, that Kellermann. They surveyed 35 households in Seattle and Memphis (I wasn't aware that either had registration) who had a handgun registered to them. 31 said that they did have a gun, 1 denied ever having had one, and 3 said they'd had one, but didn't now (which the study counts as a valid answer, but I'd classify it as fishy, at least). So 3% gave an incorrect answer and 9% gave a fishy one.

Ann C. Rafferty, et al., Validity of a Household Gun Question in a Telephone Survey, 110 PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 282 (1995). A larger sample (around 190) of households that have a registered handgun, or had a hunting license. 13% of the first and 10% of the second denied owning any type of gun.

These suggest that telephone surveys result in numbers that are significantly too low, as by an eighth to a tenth, even when the ownership is completely legal.

He drinks whiskey, enjoys cigars and is 108 years old.

Three background checks per second on Black Friday.

Story here. The three-judge panel rejected California's very late motion to intervene (and thus to appeal further when the defendant sheriff was disinclined to do so), so the State and Brady Center are asking the Ninth Circuit to hear the motion en banc.

BTW, in other circuits, en banc is en banc: if granted, all the judges of the circuit redecide the case. The 9th is so big that its en banc proceedings go to a panel of ten judges, chosen randomly, plus the chief judge.

Story here. It's the DoJ memos on how to manipulate the press.

"I've talked to NYT, NBC and NPR --gave them all this. NBC not likely to go. Still waiting on other two."

"No stories..From NYT, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NBC, Bloomberg ... I"m also calling Sharryl"s editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She's out of control"

Reply: "Good. Her piece was really bad for AG. Why do you think nobody else wrote? Were they not fed the docs?...And I sent NJ's Susan Davis your way. She's writing on Issa/FandF and I said you could load her up on the leaks, etc."

The US District Court had enjoined application of the ten day waiting period to three classes of gun buyers (I forget them now, but seem to remember that the largest one was persons who already owned a firearm--and also those who have a current CCW license). California moved to stay this on appeal, and the District Judge denied the motion.

Some very nice language:

"Defendant‟s motion suggests that the public has an interest in preventing violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have a propensity to commit violence. However, Defendant submitted no evidence that demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period will have that effect on the three as-applied classes to any appreciable degree, and all persons wishing to purchase a firearm will still have to pass the background check."

"Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant‟s favor."

Story here. The battle in DC continues. Heller established that a ban on possession failed Second Amendment muster; this followup case secured the same ruling as to DC's absolute ban on carrying. DC responded by adopting essentially a strict "may issue" system, and now Alan Gura goes for that. Stay tuned...

Story here.

Sounds like the Justice Minister was overridden.

Hat tip to Joe Olson....

...by easing restrictions on gun ownership. Some folks have their heads screwed on straight.

It's a motion for preliminary injunction, i.e., to enjoin enforcement of the statute until trial or dispositive motions terminate the case. The statute in question forbids firearms dealers to display firearms, or advertising, any place where they are visible from outside the store. It thus forbids truthful and non-misleading commercial expression, and does so inside the person's own premises.

As I recall, that prohibition is in the Uniform Firearms Act of the 1920s and 1930s. The UFA was meant to head off laws like the Sullivan Act and this (and the requirement that firearms sold be "securely wrapped" before leaving the store) were probably meant as concessions to the antigunners. "At least you'll never have to see them."

I'd say they make me pull my hair out, but I have little to pull, and pull my beard out just doesn't have the ring. "Can a felon own a gun? 5 loopholes in Federal law".

The in-depth review is by Prof. Brian Anse Patrick.

The Quakenbush -- a .458 air gun. I guess he decided, if it was good enough for Lewis and Clark, it's good enough today.

In the last election, we had a cliffhanger of a race. It pitted Ron Barber, anti-gun and backed by a lot of independent expenditures by anti-gun organizations, against Col. (ret.) Martha McSally, who not only was pro-gun, but is retired Air Force, flew combat missions, holds a Master's from Harvard and graduated first in her class from the Air War College. In short, not the typical ("I'm a politician and likable") candidate.

She prevailed in the first vote count by 161 votes, out of nearly a quarter million cast, but the slim margin makes a recount automatic. She's asking for contributions to handle the recount. I've given, and would ask you to consider doing the same.

NY law requires permits to possess handguns, and after a firearm owner dies sets a limit on how quickly his or her survivors must transfer the handguns to the heirs. In practice, the time limits are not often enforced. But Buffalo police have begun showing up at the houses of deceased gun owners, demanding to be allowed to search for and seize firearms. The program involves comparing death records to handgun permit lists, and the officers apparently are not informing the survivors that they can get the guns back, and improperly taking long arms, too.

As Dave Workman observes, so much for the claim that registration does not lead to confiscation.

Ninth Circuit order here. Peruta essentially held unconstitutional California's combination of "may issue" carry permits and banning all carry, open as well as concealed, absent such a permit. It was brought against the county sheriff. He announced he would not appeal further (to en banc rehearing or for cert.). California, which had not been sued and had not participated, then moved to intervene and take over, as did Brady Campaign (which probably had no standing and was just looking for media coverage). The panel denied both motions by a 2-1 ruling.

California can always move for rehearing en banc as to its motion. But apparently the Circuit wasn't willing to review the case itself en banc (which it can do on its own motionif a majority of judges want to), so odds there are not good. Ah, now I think I remember proceedings were stayed until this motion was ruled upon, so maybe the time period for voluntary en banc only now begins.

It concerns the PA "super-preemption" statute and its legal problems. I only wish I'd gotten one or two more minutes of time. I'd meant to suggest that there is something curious about organizations (cities) suing to establish that organizations have no power to sue.

Yep. Of course they should have referred to the gun rights movement. But, astonishingly, the article comes from The Washington Post!

In recent weeks, I've had the luxury of a little time for non-law reading, a luxury I've rarely had for many years. A few military histories that really stand out to me: